 |
 |
   Henry Waxmans climate change bill wont make it into law this year. Thats why hes the right guy for the job.
 Conspiracy theories are all fun and games until you become the subject of one.
|
   |
|
|
August 26, 2006
By: This morning Iran opened up a plant that produces heavy water, in blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities. They did so just days ahead of an end-of-August deadline imposed by the UN Security Council. Kofi Annan is now en route to Tehran to try to forestall a deepening crisis. The US's fellow UN members have in recent years accused us - rightly at times, of sidestepping and denigrating the world body. But if Russia and China do not stand by the UN's resolution and back up the offer of incentives dangled before Iranian President Ahmadinejad with penalties now that the overture has been rebuffed, it is they - not the US - that will undermine the United Nations. Some months ago, the second highest ranking UN official, Mark Malloch Brown ignited a firestorm when, at a conference sponsored by the Security and Peace Initiative, he laid into the US for failing to adequately back the UN. If Russia and China back away from concerted and forceful UN action on Iran (I realize I am sidestepping what the nature of such action would be and the questions I raised last night about whether and how sanctions can be made effective, but unity and the perception of forcefulness may ultimately be what matters most here), they will deserve at least equivalent criticism. —Suzanne Nossel 9:31 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (187)Comments
We don't really have any auithority to stop them. Lets be honest here, how many UN Resolutions have we blocked against Israel? How many do we stop from being enforced? Don't bother with arguments against equivilance, to russian or chinese eyes theres no difference. Posted by: SoulLite on August 26, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINKThe world is going to hell in a handbasket, I tell ya. And we've got a drunk monkey at the wheel. 'Inauguration', 'Grand Opening', 'Start-up',... Pipes, warning signs and other such tinkertoys look impressive, but they don't make power -- or nukes. Nothing I read says this plant is operational. I understand Iran has the technology, but there's a lot more to it than just having blueprints. Didn't this come about amazingly fast, and just under the U.N. deadline? Isn't this just another posturing step? I'm skeptical, but also looking for real information. Is this credible? Posted by: wishIwuz2 on August 26, 2006 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINKGiven the US view, stated or unstated, that it has the right to attack any country it chooses, regardless of actual threat. Given the fact that the US attacked Iraq despite the opening of sites for inspection and despite the growing body of evidence from Blix and El Baradai that there was no undeclared WMD. Given a cursory look at American internal politics and the Reublican troubles at home, coupled with their use of external enemies to win the last 2 elections. Given the example of how poorly Israel did in Lebanon when relying on primarily airpower with the resultant civilian casualties and loss of world opininion. If I were Iran, I would assume: All of this was avoidable. But the US had to not play the bully, had to not overtly call Iran part of some axis of evil... Blame the Russians and the Chinese all you want, but the blame is primarily Bush's. It took 5 years of bluster and stupidity to get to this point, maybe more. Posted by: Wapiti on August 26, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINKRefresh my memory - isn't it true that Iran has the right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to build a heavy water reactor? Also, say you were negotiating with your neighbor about building a second story to your house that was allowed by the zoning laws but the politically well-connected neighbor didn't like, and your neighbor demanded that you stop all construction-related activities as a condition to negotiations. Wouldn't you have the suspicion that once you stopped, thus giving your neighbor everything that neighbor hoped to gain from the negotiations anyway, that the "negotiations" would then be extended to eternity? Wouldn't it be smarter to have the architects keep on designing, and comply with the existing planning laws for building second stories that everyone else, like your neighbor India, was bound by? Posted by: RepubAnon on August 26, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINKThere are many, many assumptions in your posts, Suzanne. Many, many. Try and build your foundations first. Posted by: 54tg7,,x on August 26, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINKI agree wholeheartedly with RebupAnon. Suzanne, sorry, but this post is a pile-of-junk, BushCo/Bolton/Neocon talkingpoints. Iran is 10 years away from producing weapons-grade fissile material -- and has been that way for 30 years. Let's watch Bush screw up the UN. Everything else he's laid his mitts on has turned to crap. Can we turn Political Animal / WashingtonMonthly back into a reality-based blog where spin is rebutted with facts. The third-order issue should not be raised without addressing the falsity of all the presumptions, by which I mean, don't complain about how bad the support for a UN role in Iran is amongst our presumed allies against proliferation without identifying how the UN's choices for action have been so degraded by the neo-cons running the USA show. Why do you support Bush war mongering? The greatest danger is that the Bush Administration will deceive the US into a conflict with Iran. Don't buy into Bush propaganda on Iran the same way the media got suckered on Iraq propaganda. I have zero trust that Bush will not screw up Iran policy. It is completely nuts to get into a conflict with Iran. Naive well intentioned people in the media do great harm to the US by providing cover for the Bush administration nutcases. Why doesn't Bush try diplomacy for a change and actually talk to the Iranians? There is no reason why Iran should not be an ally. Posted by: bakho on August 26, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINKVery interesting ideas, Suzanne, but do we need such a dense writing style? Your last paragraph is an example. The parenthetical statement is longer than the sentence it's nested in. It's hard to follow the thread. Posted by: Punditbot on August 26, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINKIran may be a problem but, the intelligence agencies dont seem to think so. Anyway, the question we should all ask ourselves when we go to the polls this fall is: "Do we really want the same bunch of incompetent legislators running the show should we need to engage Iran?" It's time to elect people with with conviction and integrity and throw out the corrupt bunch that we have now. Posted by: j_ny on August 26, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINKSuzanne Nossel: what international law is iran breaking? describe what agreement or treaty they are defying? iran has a right to develop a clear weapon if it chooses. i would prefer that no country have a nuclear weapon, but if america lets india and pakistan and israel have one, why should i take their whining at the UN seriously? Posted by: red mike on August 26, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINKin blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities. The scolding step-parent approach is really not an attractive policy. I am not familiar with NPT, but is the conflict really about Iran's nuclear aspirations or is it Iran's refusal to obey the righteous authority of the US, with people like Ms. Nossel using the stick of the UN to impose its authority. The scolding step-parent is about to evolve into the abusive foster parent, stuffing a sock down the throat of Iran and then throwing the dead out a window while driving off with the petrol. When the US renounces and dismantles its nuclear weapons then let Ms. Nossel write about other belligerent countries problems. I am really becoming increasingly afraid attempts to use force against Iran are becoming imminent, and it is because of people like Nossel, who will not do anything more than stoke the fires of hate and bigotry, who are to blame for the non-stop demonizing of Iran. [url=http://site.voila.fr/111a/1860mms/index.html]彩信下载专业网[/url] Thomas 1: "I guess we had no "authority" to stop Japan or Germany in WWII then either" thanks for the partial history lesson. you guys sure helped a lot, you shortened the war by five years. but you didnt do it single handed (ask the millions of russians killed) and you were very tardy to the party. canada declared war on the axis in sept of 1939, you gusy showed up in 1941, ONLY after being attacked. "Where are the Truman's and John F. Kennedy's when we need them?" bad analogy dude. truman couldnt win korea and jfk couldnt win vietnam. Posted by: red mike on August 26, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINKFirst of all, we have different fears and so different agendas. You are focused soley on Iran (though you seem to have difficulty differentiating Tehran from Baghdad), while we, although also having some concern about Iran's programme, are in addition trying to hamstrin g a Bush-led US because frankly a little craziiness by a country the size of the US is a lot more frightening than a lot of craziness by a country the size of Iran (though at this juncture I don't know if it can be said that Iran is winning the craziness competition). Any of the unity you say matters most cannot happen if the US insists it be by following the US piper which seems to be your line. Posted by: foreign guy on August 26, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINKlessee... how to turn the anti war left into defenders of Israel??? Jews on leftist forums, hijack the conversation about Iraq and turn it into HOW TO STOP THE EVIL IRANIANS>>> We will be saturated with 'news' of Iranian TERROR until the left produces ONLY ISraeli friendly hawks. Any takers? ... anyone stupid enough to see through the name changes of these stealth jews? Posted by: Charles on August 26, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINKThis action by Iran doesn't violate the NPT, and even if it did, any country has the right to withdraw from the NPT by giving three months' notice. The NPT is not international law. Furthermore, there is no moral justification for forcing this UN resolution down Iran's throat while allowing Israel to ignore UN resolutions by the boatload. Posted by: Firebug on August 26, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINKwe've got a drunk monkey at the wheel. The drunken monkey's power derives from the people, who are ex-slave owners used to fucking any brown skinned child that attracts their eye. Iran is much like an attractive slave child to people like Thomas1, Suzanne Nossel, Cheney, and Bush. They see something they like and want to slober all over it before they tighten the garret and smash in its head. Their genitals become excited when the eyes of the child bulge out as the knot of their righteous morality tightens. The people of the US have assumed the powers of the plantation foreman, who rape all children and give stripes to any who interfere with their absolute authority. I've come here under many names, many guises, always spewing my antisemitic filth. I'm a very, very sick person. Before the invention of the internet, I would have been the loon you walk past in the park. Posted by: Charles on August 26, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINKIt seems to me that the national interests of China and Russia would be best served by a non-nuclear Iran. After all, they're both nearer to Iran than the USA, and each has a restless Muslim population. What are they seeing that I'm missing? Posted by: Bob Miller on August 26, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINKThe US should stand up for the UN. What does that mean? The US cherry picks what it wants to follow anyway. What's to be done about Iran anyway? Another invasion. Or just a round of bombings. Good read: http://mondediplo.com/2006/08/03airpower Posted by: CapeCod on August 26, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINKCharles, before the Civil War, you were the person who would purchase an African child, boy or girl, and then take them home and fuck them every which way. Most child molesters are descendants of slave owners. Security analysts are envious of that type of absolute power. It makes them salivate and want to create terror zones where that kind of behavior is commonplace. Posted by: Hostile on August 26, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK Charles, if I have mistakenly identified you as being a neo-con ex-slave owner child molester, like Ms. Nossel, I apologize. Posted by: Hostile on August 26, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK>"I guess we had no "authority" to stop Japan or Germany in WWII then either." Ever hear of Pearl Harbor? The Japanese attacked the United States on Dec 7, 1941. It is one of the few cases where the US went to war as a response to a direct attack/actions by a foreign nation. Hmmm... only other situation I can think of like that would be the War of 1812? Every other time the US has either been the agressor nation or has acted abroad via proxy to defend economic interests. War of 1812 - Direct Threat
bad analogy dude. truman couldnt win korea and jfk couldnt win vietnam. dem Jews gonna turn you into the war party next. Perhaps I apologized too soon. Posted by: Hostile on August 26, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINKSuzanne did you read Lauras post? Where can President Bush start to rouse Republicans to get to the polls? Barnes: "The place to start is Iran." Are you coming around here to get folks on board to elect Republicans and push the neocon agenda? Many of us are tired of your neocon fear-mongering and chronic urgency without any evidence. We had our fill with Iraq. Sister, this blog is one long deconstruction of the 'Middle East emergency'. Why exactly is Iran a threat? Do they want to nuke the US or Israel or invade someone or are they just crazy? What stability do they threaten? Please be explicit. You assume Russia and China are interested in an immediate solution... China sees US resources being sapped throughout the middle east, causing us to borrow more and more from them... Putin wants to be a superpower again and seems to be playing the President like a fiddle... I haven't played it all out, but if Russia and China think they can stop Iran at their will, they may not see it in their interest to slow Iran down quite yet... They also probably make more money as the threat to Iran increases... Add to that, this whole thing plays into a GOP election timeline, and you have no reason to believe any of this willbe resolved this year, and we will be right back at it in Aug 2008... Posted by: justmy2 on August 26, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK"International law" barely exists. Yes, there are a few principles that are more-or-less agreed to, but no international court has the power to interpret "intenational law." No international police force enforces it. E.g., when Hezbollah made unprovoked rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, no outside international body came to Israel's aid. When Slobodan Milosevic was commiting genocide, no formal outside international body intervened. (Fortunately, President Clinton organized a coalition of the willing to take action.) I didn't want the US to be the world's police force. Unfortunately, there's no one else. Al Qaeda and the Taliban would rule Afghanisatan today, but for the US. Saddam would be in power, but for the US. Even in former Yugoslavia, European countries didn't get involved until the US provided leadership. Iran already considerable influence over Syria, and over Lebanon (via Hezbollah). They can afford a huge military arsenal. If Iran gets a nuclear arsenal and goes on to control other middle eastern countries, no world body will stop them. If Iran provides nuclear weapons to terrorist groups, no international body will stop them. In short, I didn't want to see unilateral US action against Iran, but there is no other option. Posted by: ex-liberal on August 26, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINKf Russia and China back away from concerted and forceful UN action on Iran....they will deserve at least equivalent criticism. With all due respect, let's get several things straight here: China funds the Unites State's debt. There would be no War on Terror, no cluster bombs for Israel, no high tech Pentagon gizmos without Chinese money. Russia is now the world's foremost enegry exporter, including Saudi Arabia. There would be no fuel for SUVs, for suburban commuting,for tanks, for aircraft carriers without Russian oil. So who is zooming whom? Posted by: Thinker on August 26, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINKGee. Kevin has turned to the neo-cons to do holiday relief. Sorry Suzanne, I am not impressed at your re-hashed ramblings, in fact just a couple days of reading your writing and I am about ready to cancel Mr. Drum from my blog reading list. ttul Dear Kevin Drum, could you please be more careful to whom you hand the keys. We appreciate reasoned argument, not Suzanne Nossel's consultant-speak nonsense. Hey Suzanne, your position is a non-starter. Israel has ignored tons of UN resolutions, and already has the bomb to boot. You sound like an op-ed in the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal. You want to egg us into a war where someone else does the dying for you. We irate moderates aren't going for it. Posted by: Shogun on August 26, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINKWhat is the most likely explanation for all this? BushCo can't stand to have another country thumbing its nose at them. Iran taking an independent stand must be like waving a red flag at a bull. The thin-skinnedness of the so-called U.S. government is absolutely unbelievable. So: take one failed (disastrous, actually) Mid East adventure, mix in the accumulating internal embarrassment together with loss of Republican support, season with Iraq's refusal to say "Uncle", garnish with neocon blinders and what do you get? Intense pressure for more war. Ab-sol-ute-ly sickening.
Boy, The Suzanne Nossel lovefest is really going swimmingly... But you reap what you sow... But seeing the lack of response, I assume she isn't even reading the comments... Why is it that those who are least capable of defending their arguments refuse to engage in comments in the blogosphere...? Ok...dumb question... Why call Charles names when he speaks truth?
Action heroes The al-Qaeda franchise will pour forth its bowl of pestilence and death. We know this because weve watched it countless times on TV and in the movies, just as our officials have done. Based on their behavior, its reasonable to suspect that everything John Reid and Michael Chertoff know about counterterrorism, they learned watching the likes of Bruce Willis, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Vin Diesel, and The Rock (whose palpable homoerotic appeal it would be discourteous to emphasize). Its a pity that our security rests in the hands of government officials who understand as little about terrorism as the Florida clowns who needed their informant to suggest attack scenarios, as the 21/7 London bombers who injured no one, as lunatic shoe bomber Richard Reid, as the Forest Gate nerve gas attackers who had no nerve gas, as the British nitwits who tried to acquire red mercury, and as the recent binary liquid bomb attackers who had no binary liquid bombs. For some real terror, picture twenty guys who understand op-sec, who are patient, realistic, clever, and willing to die, and who know what can be accomplished with a modest stash of dimethylmercury. You wont hear about those fellows until its too late. Our official protectors and deciders trumpet the fools they catch because they havent got a handle on the people we should really be afraid of. They make policy based on foibles and follies, and Hollywood plots. Posted by: tj on August 26, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINKJesus you guys are quick. Well, let me unleash my own snark anyway, although red mike and asdf nailed it: >Where are the Truman's and John F. Kennedy's when we need them? In the clouds still smarting over Korea and the Bay Of Pigs. Both failures, both of which you might notice didn't lead to the end of the world or even close to it. And dearest Ms. Nossel, heavy-water is used in reactors of the type that use reactive materials that Iran can supply internally. Man, BushCo started this match with Iran in the position of one pawn against a full board and that pawn is just mowing down eveything. Posted by: doesn't matter on August 26, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK"This morning Iran opened up a plant that produces heavy water, in blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities" Heavy water is not a component of nuclear weapons. It is used in heavy water reactors - reactors that can be fueled by UNeneriched uranium. There is no defiance or violaton of UN by opening this plant. Enriching uranium, in definance of the UN is a separate issue from anything to do with this plant. Posted by: Tano on August 26, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINKIf you were a developing country in a volatile part of the world...and if the president of the world's most powerful country designated you as part of an "axis of evil"...and if that same president then attacked one of the other so designated countries without ANY provocation (save for his own and his associates' gross and inexcusable stupidity)...would you: ????????????????????????????? Posted by: RonB on August 26, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINKSuzanne-- You really think that Russia's and China's failure to "act" on Iran (whatever that means) is equivalent to the USA going to war in Iraq over the UN's objection? You admit you don't even know what to actually do about Iran, yet you come in with this ridiculously self-righteous attitude. It's laughable. A consultant who doesn't have any real ideas for action shouldn't attack people for not "acting". Do you realize how funny this sounds? And what interest does China or Russia really have in a non-nuclear Iran? Teheran is not going to lob nuclear missiles at either nation. That's why they care very little about this whole brou-ha-ha. China fought a war with India not too long ago. Russia fought a (proxy) war with Pakistan. Both Pakistan and India were allowed to have nuclear weapons with little more than a peep out of the U.S. So I doubt too many people in Russia or China are sympathetic to the legalistic arguments people like Suzanne Nossel make when it comes to Iran. Posted by: kokblok on August 26, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK Suzanne, You're inching far too close to the line of common sense with this post, I'd advise you strongly to retract it. This kind of stuff is not going to fly on Kevin's website. If America is not shown to be the evil empire and focus of evil in the world, the Democratic base does not want to hear it. Posted by: minion of rove on August 26, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINKI assume she isn't even reading the comments... Ms. Nossel is like Lanny Davis, an elitist who works from a top down perspective. If America is not shown to be the evil empire and focus of evil in the world, the Democratic base does not want to hear it. Heh. I still marvel at Bill's post in the Accountability thread the other day. Might we then start to understand why they hate us and more usefully why we should hate ourselves? "Where are the Truman's and John F. Kennedy's when we need them?" While I understand they why & wherefores of our nuking Japan at the end of WWII it nevertheless does not put Truman in my Column of "good guys" As for why the are no Kennedy's - he would never get elected in today's US political game. He would be swifboated mercilessly, that whole PT109 thing is just begging for the full blown Gore/Kerry/McCain/Chamblis treatment P.S. Did I stumble into the wrong blog? Why does this post feel like it belongs on some fetid right wing nutter site? Posted by: freemti on August 26, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINKOh, by the way, the name of Ms. Nossel's organization is an oxymoron. "Democracy" = "the people choose". "Arsenal" = "the weapons we use to impose our will by force". In all likelihood, the world will have to get used to Iran eventually developing nuclear weapons. The same applies to North Korea. While pundits from the Right can urge military action, the truth is that the Bush Administration won't touch either country so long as they have any other option. Despite the early warnings of quagmire, Afghanistan was a relatively minor affair. It remains so, largely because we rightly have no interest in pacifying the Hindu Kush. Even Iraq remains manageable from a military perspective (meaning our units do not face any meaningful opposition capable of defeating them). But Iran and North Korea are horses of dramatically different colors. Iran is even larger than Iraq, has more population and a strong sense of national cohesion. We won't even bomb them. Even if we were not in Iraq, Iran is safe from us. If North Korea decided to start a war, we could expect US casualties in the hundreds on the first day, thousands within as little as a week. Not to mention the almost certain destruction of Seoul. So we'll walk softly there, as well.. It is not coincidental that the Bush Administration seeks diplomatic solutions for Iran and North Korea. The efforts will probably be futile, but they beat a major conventional war. Posted by: Trashhauler on August 26, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINKThe foreign policy of the US towards Iran is being driven by the fears of its small or weak allies who have some reason to be afraid of Iran (not just Israel, but the Gulf States as well). Chinese and Russian foreign policy is being driven by Chinese and Russian national interest. Guess which approach makes more sense. Posted by: kokblok on August 26, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINKWell Suzzanne, if you insist. "Russia and China you are both naughty nations!" Did that help? Posted by: Matt on August 26, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKGiven the influence of PNAC alumni on the current US Presidential Administration, and the demonstrated tendency of Cheney and his crowd to do exactly what they say they are going to do, for the government of any midsized regional power (which is what Iran is) NOT to be building nuclear weapons as fast as they can would at best be malfesence in office. More likely treason. The Iranian government (however nasty we may consider it to be from 9,000 miles away) has _no choice_ but to develop such weapons. And they have been placed in that postion squarely by Bush, Cheney, and the American polity. Not Really Posted by: Not Really on August 26, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINKMy interpretation of minion and RSM: "If, in any discussion of foreign affairs, about any country, at any time, you criticize the US or its military, we will label you a ____________hater. And then you will have no credibility, you see?" They "win" all their arguments this way. Posted by: Foundation of Mud on August 26, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINKWhy should we worry about Iranian nukes ? After all, Dubya has spent billions on a missile defense system that will protect us... If there was a threat of terrorists using nuclear Well, at least the Republicans have secured our ports and borders against infiltration by terrorists..Oh, wait a minute... Posted by: Stephen on August 26, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINKSuzzanne Nossel: "This morning Iran opened up a plant that produces heavy water, in blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities." My god, Suzzanne is taking it as a given that Iran has "nuclear weapons production activities." Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, has conducted 3 years of go-anywhere see-anything inspections and has found no indication that Iran has a nuclear weapons program! Yes, Iran is enriching uranium but it is allowed this activity under the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treat it signed and is apparently following to the letter. Intelligent Americans seem to be very eager to believe the unfounded allegations being thrown around again by the Bush about the threat of a Middle Eastern nation. How many times do you people want to be fooled by these charlatans? If you accept the case that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program, then it's only a short step towards accepting the notion that military action is justified in stopping it. Hello! Do any of you recall that WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk" case? I'm one helluva lot more skeptical now about any such claims that could lead us to take preemptive military action against another nation. I now need to see some iron-clad evidence of such claims before I'll believe those claims. I wish more Americans were as skeptical about these claims as I am! Posted by: Taobhan on August 26, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINKLet's get back to fundamentals here. Our choices--doing nothing, or doing something with George Bush in charge. I'll pay attention to geopolitics and the hard choices facing the US when and if we ever get out from under the Neo-cons. All the rest if building castles in the air. Posted by: Raenelle on August 26, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINKHeavy water could be used to produce tritium in a reactor, I think. Posted by: Boronx on August 26, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK"If, in any discussion of foreign affairs, about any country, at any time, you criticize the US or its military, we will label you a ____________hater. And then you will have no credibility, you see?" They "win" all their arguments this way. There is self-criticism of US policies and actions, and then there is saying we should hate ourselves. Can you see the difference? Posted by: Red State Mike on August 26, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINKrsm ... you've never shown the slightest inclination toward introspection of america's genocidal foreign policy. for you to whine about degrees of acceptable criticism is, minimally, disingenuous, since you will never partake it at any level. but don't worry ... I'm sure all the protein you and the neocons derived from sucking bush's dick these past 6 yrs will sustain you. Posted by: Nads on August 26, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINKSidestepping the issue of what to do? How stupid! The US should talk to the Iranians. It is called diplomacy. It is that simple. DUH Bush won't talk to the Iranians because he is an incompetent war monger. It has nothing to do with the UN or any other countries. Posted by: bakho on August 26, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINKNads Oh, nicely loaded question, that. No wonder we are required to hate ourselves. We're genocidal! You're right, I refuse to recognize the genocidability of our foreign policy. As for never critiquing our foreign policy, you're just a poor reader with blinders. but don't worry ... I'm sure all the protein you and the neocons derived from sucking bush's dick these past 6 yrs will sustain you. Yea, like anyone would ever enter into any sort of reasoned discourse with you. Heh. Posted by: Red State Mike on August 26, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINKlike most neocon, bush-worshipping cocksuckers, your critique of american foreign policy is that it isn't aggressive or genocidal enough. Posted by: Nads on August 26, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINKlike most neocon, bush-worshipping cocksuckers, your critique of american foreign policy is that it isn't aggressive or genocidal enough. Why do you hate America? Posted by: Red State Mike on August 26, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKNice post, Suzanne, but a bit late in the game. The Left is no longer sane. Posted by: harmony on August 26, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINKRSM, How would you classify the killing of 2 million or so Vietnamese in order to prevent Vietnamese self-determination? On the subject of Iran, who subverted and overthrew whose democratically elected gov't? If the full story of US interference in Irans affairs was known, both to the American public and to the world, how would that effect our stature and our credibility? And Mike, kindly keep your eye on the ball as to what I have said and what I haven't said. I haven't said the US is evil. I haven't said "Iran is good." I'm saying, look at the factual history and ask if we're justified in arrogating the moral highground to ourselves? Posted by: obscure on August 26, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINKNossel... isn't that JEWISH?? ethnocentric bias should be admitted in every discussion of the Middle East. We simply cannot afford to trust Jews [hiding their ethnocentric bias] to tell the truth Posted by: tj on August 26, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINKRepeating 2002 by pumping up fears of Iran's eviltude while bemoaning the glacial UN mere weeks before a midterm election may not be the best ways further our goals in the region. Posted by: Boronx on August 26, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINKWhy do you hate America? Why do you waste time with non-sequiturs? Posted by: obscure on August 26, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINKHow would you classify the killing of 2 million or so Vietnamese in order to prevent Vietnamese self-determination? Apart from my taking issue with your statement, it doesn't even meet the definition of genocide... The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. Why do you waste time with non-sequiturs? Why do you waste time with ad hominems? I'm assuming you are doubling as Nads or Bill. Posted by: Red State Mike on August 26, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINKWe simply cannot afford to trust Jews [hiding their ethnocentric bias] to tell the truth But we can sure afford to trust racist trash like yourself, huh tj? Posted by: obscure on August 26, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINKWhat ad hominem are you talking about? And are you disputing that our intervention in Vietnam was specifically in order to prevent the national unity elections called for in the Geneva agreement? Posted by: obscure on August 26, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINKWhat ad hominem are you talking about? The one that led to the non sequitur. And are you disputing that our intervention in Vietnam was specifically in order to prevent the national unity elections called for in the Geneva agreement? I am disputing that our foreign policy is genocidal, since that was the discussion going on. Are you talking about something else? Posted by: Red State Mike on August 26, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINKI don't think anyone can rationally argue that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. So here we see what the Democratic response would have been if Iraq had in fact been building WMDs. No different. Posted by: bill on August 26, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINKHas anyone brought up this hypocrisy in the American position: This year, we signed a treaty with India, a non-signatory to the NPT and a country with a nuclear weapons capability, to exchange nuclear technology for civilian purposes. This same year, we are pursuing sanctions against Iran, which is a party to the NPT, because they are developing uranium enrichment capability. These sorts of stances completely undermine the NPT, which I would argue is pretty much dead at this point. The question is, do we try to salvage the NPT, or build a new framework for today's realities? Or is this question not worth asking when you have an administration that treats treaties and international accords with open disdain? Shouldn't nonproliferation be a key leg in any successful anti-terrorism policy? Posted by: forsythe on August 26, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINKThere is self-criticism of US policies and actions, and then there is saying we should hate ourselves. We should hold Americans to the same standard we held Nazi German generals and political leaders at the end of WWII. That means hanging the generals who have overseen torture and murder of captives and civilians and put Bush and Cheney in prison for life. I would enjoy seeing Bush turned into an insane Rudolf Hess while serving a life-time in solitary confinement. I suspect Bush would go insane in less than 90 days. And what about those unbrave men and women that drop bombs on wedding parties, torture, and shoot old ladies in the face? Most Nazi soldiers were held for a short time and then released back into society by the Americans. So, I will accept that punishment for these followers of deadly authority. Perhaps we should tattoo 'Served Bush' on their foreheads so the rest of can be sure to keep children away from them. Posted by: Hostile on August 26, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINKIf people in the midst of this argument have airstrikes in the back off their minds as some sort of possible solution that might be turned to in this case, they need to go outside remove their shirts and flog their own backs with a garden hose until they forget about it or pass out. We are fucked because we are in Iraq. Yes, I know where you are going, but just stop right there and say it again. We are fucked because we are in Iraq. It's natural to sift desperately for reasons why we aren't hamstrung, but when you weigh all of the options in balance it always comes out this way. The C+ Augustus crowd thought that the invasion would be a clever little stratagem, but they were completely mistaken and now they think the can pull something off by doubling down with more people's lives. And the kicker? All of this was the very obvious outcome and predicted by many but the Pep Rallys didn't want to hear about it. The irony? In the grand scheme of things if the Iran nuclear issue had been looked at and people had realized that it was probably a more realistic concern than Iraq, still having a Hussein dominated Iraq would have allowed us more leverage in that fight. Afghanistian would have sufficed for the basing. Forget about the politics of it, it was a massive strategic blunder pure and simple. You simply cannot overstate the imcompetence of it. Because moderates consider people who accept the moral authority of Israel's and the US's military hegemony worthy of attention and a place at the table of discussion, we are at war. Posted by: Hostile on August 26, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINKI think kokblok and others have nailed Nossel on this one. This is a lame, dime-a-dozen "liberal hawk" monologue built on false assumptions and vague hints of violence. But there is a kernel of a real, important issue here. The UN Security Council invested a substantial amount of diplomatic energy into stopping Iran from advancing their nuclear program, with an implied threat of force if they failed to comply. Generally speaking, most American liberals have supported this process due to it being vastly preferable to any ideas the neocons were likely to come up with. But Iran has now called the bluff. So a failure to provide some sort of stick takes a bite out of the credibility of the liberal internationalist approach to national security. The root problem here is that the internationalists have shot themselves in the foot by trying to bluff Iran and selectively applying the NPT to countries they don't like while giving Israel and India a free pass... but the consequence of this failure is that it will strengthen the hand of those who want war with Iran. It also may lead to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons at some point in the not-so-distant future. And while allowing this to happen may arguably be the least-worst option, it's also a position that can be credibly tagged as "isolationist". I seriously doubt the Mullahs are on the verge of developing nukes and handing them over to terrorists... but I live in the DC area and I'm not entirely sure I want to bet my life on this matter. So at the risk of sounding like Karl Rove, does anyone to the Left of Bill Kristol actually have a plan for dealing with this situation? While doing nothing is probably better than bombing Iran, I'd really love to hear some actual ideas that involve doing something. We are fucked because we are in Iraq.Yep. And we need to get out of Iraq to get unfucked. But what should we do in the meantime? Posted by: ajl on August 26, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK Perhaps China and Russia should put aside their substantial economic interests in Iran, and approve sanctions. But when it comes to deplorable policies, consider: UN SCRs aren't unimportant. But more effective would be policy changes at Foggy Bottom. If the use of force is on the horizon, the US should be willing to offer substantial concessions to induce Iran to obviate the need for it. (I forebear to mention how in 1953 (and again during the course of the Iran-Iraq) the United States did what it could to, in good time stoke hostility in Tehran.) Posted by: Perspectivist on August 26, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINKYep. And we need to get out of Iraq to get unfucked. But what should we do in the meantime?
2) Realize and speak outwardly that there is not a single carrot that will deter Iran from the bomb. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. This is the North Korean lesson to every nation on earth. Exhibit B is Pakistan. Arguably the entire future existence of the Iranian State rides on achieving this. 3)Depending on the answer to question #1, you either withdraw from Iraq proper in drawdown stages beginning this fall, and concede that the place will be carved up by Iran, Turkey and Jordan, with perhaps better or worse consequences than S. Hussein. Or you withdraw from Iraq via Iran, following the roads into Afghanistan making pit stops along the way in Tehran or wherever our sparkling WMD intel tells us to go. This trip will probably take two years and ignite wars elsewehere, but eventually we exit via Afghanistan or the Caspian Sea, probably with empty hands and probably leaving behind an equally appreciative populace as we did in Iran. So in short, there is no "unfucking" ourselves from this. That is why its such an amazing blunder to consider. It just keeps on snowballing. Posted by: Ten in Tenn on August 26, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINKIsn't Saudi Arabia attempting to acquire a nuclear weapon through their secret nuclear program with Pakistan? Why aren't the wingnuts calling for a confrontation with Saudi Arabia? Are they appeasers? If there is a terrorist threat from Iran, wouldn't it be irrational to assert that there is any the less terrorist threat from Saudi Arabia? Posted by: bblog on August 26, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINKKofi Annan is now en route to Tehran to try to forestall a deepening crisis. Annan's primary purpose in heading to the Middle East is Lebanon. After visiting Lebanon he will go to Israel, Syria and Iran. While I'm sure the nuclear issue will be on his agenda in Tehran, he didn't suddenly pack his bags because of this event. Posted by: has407 on August 26, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINKI live in the DC area and I'm not entirely sure I want to bet my life on this matter. You are willing to bet other peoples lives though. The people in Tehran already have US nukes targeting them. Complete crazy mother-murderers like Bush have their finger on the trigger ready to make my worst fears happen. Bush is also counseled by crazy motherfucking homegrown mullahs like the Priest Ted Haggard, with whom he meets with weekly. Rod Parsely, another insane war whore, helps the generals determine targets and spends his time with people like Ms. Nossel drawing up re-education plans for the entire Islamic population. Living in DC does not give you the right to act out your hysterical fears and kill people so you can sleep soundly. You must be hiding some guilt that realizes the US deserves retaliation for its crimes. Iran will not give the bomb to terrorists or initiate a first strike any other way. Iran wants us to stop trying to impose imperialist regime change and the only way to guarantee that right of nations is to obtain nuclear weapons capability, because even 'liberals' want to destroy Iran. Isn't that right, Ms. Nossel? Baby fucking Jesus! Think of how the strategic analysts in Iran must read the crap people like Nossel write. The only conclusion they could have is that Iran must accelerate their nuclear program ASAP before the US strikes. Does anyone know who finances Democracy Arsenal? Is it Scaife, the DOD, or the WH? Horrors, it might be the DLC! Posted by: Hostile on August 26, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINKJohn Robb's latest insight on the Western way of war. If Robb is right, then neocon chest thumping about Iran is inherently frivilous: PLAYING WITH WAR * Operations of low lethality. Western militaries do not have the desire, nor the sanction, to conduct the high casualty operations typically associated with real wars. Technology has been leveraged to increase the precision of attacks to limit collateral damage and save the lives of soldiers. The corollary to this is that western militaries are also fiercely protective of the lives of their soldiers. Warfare, increasingly, is supposed to be costless. What this means is that we will not see Sherman's 'March to the Sea' or Hama in the near future - and - the loss of a hundred soldiers in southern Lebanon will be enough to stop the Israeli army. Playing with War * Asymmetric motivation. In almost all instances, the opposition will approach the conflict as an existential war. This motivation both allows them to fight harder and longer than those western forces sent against it. The only aspects of warfare left in the west's favor are training and technology. Learning to Live with Limits * Nation-building as a global social policy. Historically, counter-insurgency against an established enemy has almost never worked (and when it has, it usually involves bloody exterminations). Any attempt to build a nation will likely, particularly in the current environment of globalization, yield an opponent that will be impossible to defeat through limited means. Further, the durations of these conflicts will exceed the capacity of the western states to maintain a cohesive set of objectives -- they will shift with opinion polls and political winds. he laid into the US for failing to adequately back the UN. Is it true that the French lied to Colin Powell outright when they promised, if necessary, to enforce UNSCR 1442? Is it true that the French lied outright when they promised to Rice and Bolton that they would enforce UNSCR 1701? Will the deployment of U.N. troops in support of the Lebanese army actually result in a reduction of Hezbollah military power, or even slow the rate of the Hezbollah re-armament? does anybody in the world care that UNSCR 242 requires the neighbors of Israel to negotiate with Israel for the return of conquered lands, negotiations that entail the recognition of Israel? Egypt negotiated, and got back the Sinai excluding Gaza -- now Israel has withdrawn from Gaza; Jordan has recognized Israel without demanding that it get back the West Bank. But enemies of the Zionist entity demand that it return the Golan Heights to Syria unconditionally. the list of the questions is to make a point: nobody cares what the resolutions of the UNSC contain, except possibly the resolution that led to Gulf War I, strongly led by the U.S. For Malloch brown to single out the U.S. is ironic because the U.S. tries harder than any other nation to make the U.N. enforce its resolutions. The Iran case fits the general pattern. Having signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and having received technical assistance under its auspices, Iran will now violate the treaty ad lib. It will continue to receive technical assistance as it "negotiates" with the IAEA. As France, Russia and China did with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, the countries that count on making the most money will oppose sanctions on Iran, and will bust any sanctions that the U.S. chooses to impose. What to do? following yesterday's discussion, I'd propose (and I wrote this to my congress folk and pres. Bush) immediate increases in U.S. energy production capacity to make us less dependent on the middle east. Build some more of everything in every state: coal liquifaction; PV cells; wind farms; biofuels factories; thermal depoplymerization plants; nuclear power plants. Accompany this with investments to reduce fuel consumption. For evidence that this is both workable and economically productive, check out the posts by Secular Animist yesterday. Include an increased investment in CO2 sequestration in order to make the synfuels plants acceptible to environmentalists. This will both increase American military and commercial power, and make Iran less of a problem. Posted by: republicrat on August 26, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK(1) "This morning Iran opened up a plant that produces heavy water, in blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities." You have proof, do you, that this plant is involved in nuclear weapons production rather than research or for power generation? (2) The US wants China and Russia to uphold UN resolutions, to prevent the undermining of the UN. Hah hah hah. This is the same US that never met a foreign treaty (Kyoto, ICC, Geneva Convention) it didn't snub its nose at? The same US that told the UN to go screw itself four years ago? The same US that had Colin Powell lying to the UN? (3) The US doesn't want to set poor examples regarding proliferation? This is the same US that has never criticized Israeli nukes? That signed an agreement with India that basically amounts to not just legitimizing but helping out its nuclear program? That has done nothing to sanction Pakistan?
So at the risk of sounding like Karl Rove, does anyone to the Left of Bill Kristol actually have a plan for dealing with this situation? While doing nothing is probably better than bombing Iran, I'd really love to hear some actual ideas that involve doing something. You want a plan? You can't handle what needs to be done. The problem with countering nuclear proliferation is that no one trusts us at this point. Our stated foreign policy seems to be that we will invade anyone who might remotely be a threat in the future, or have something we want, unless they have nuclear weapons of their own. To persuade other nations that they don't require nuclear weapons to keep us away, we might consider: Yeah, it sounds crazy. But given the current account deficits - just how long can we pay for the best military in the world on Chinese credit? That bill will come due. And when it does... Better to have friends than to be everybody's enemy. Posted by: Wapiti on August 26, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK... they will deserve at least equivalent criticism. Do they care? Do their trading partners care? No. No. Posted by: republicrat on August 26, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINKThis morning Iran opened up a plant that produces heavy water, in blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities. As noted by others the heavy water plant is not "in blunt defiance of UN insistence". The relevant portion of the IAEA Director General's report GOV/2006/27, as noted in UNSCR 1696 is: In this context, the Board deemed it necessary for Iran to:(emphasis added) Posted by: has407 on August 26, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK ... they will deserve at least equivalent criticism. You are comparing Iran proceding to open the heavy water plant to: blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities. You need to make that case by supplying some supporting information and explanation. Then you compare that defiance to what U.S. did when it ignored the UN and invaded Iraq with lethal air and ground forces. Another great leap you need to explain. Posted by: little ole jim from red country on August 26, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINKnuke 'em. hit them till they glow. 0nly 1.3 billion muslims-- how many nukes would it take? Posted by: Dr Wu on August 26, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINKOh no! The UN may be ineffective?!? That's crazy talk. Any body whose members are mainly autocrats and dictators simply must be better than the US. I mean, we're the bad guys, right? As the first commenter stated, it's our fault for backing Israel. Why do so many Lefties hate the US? I question your patriotism. Posted by: Birkel on August 26, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINKreconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water. So the question now is, why does Kevin Drum allow liars and propagandists to post on his blog? Posted by: bblog on August 26, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINKThe US doesn't want to set poor examples regarding proliferation? This is the same US that has never criticized Israeli nukes? That signed an agreement with India that basically amounts to not just legitimizing but helping out its nuclear program? That has done nothing to sanction Pakistan? The U.S. tried to sanction Pakistan. It led to stronger relations between Pakistan and the Taliban. Today's announcement does not seem, in fact, to be a contradiction to Iran's treaty. The most likely use to be made of the heavy water is a heavy water reactor (in Canada, the design is called "CANDU", and they are quite safe and reliable.) In principle there is a difference between never signing a treaty (US with Kyoto, Israel with NPT) and ignoring a treaty after signing it (Iran with NPT.) Legalistically, there is also a distinction between ignoring a UNSC resolution and vetoing one. The principle seems to have been laid down recently that even unanimous UNSC resolutions have no force. Posted by: republicrat on August 26, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINKIf Russia and China back away from concerted and forceful UN action on Iran (I realize I am sidestepping what the nature of such action would be and the questions I raised last night about whether and how sanctions can be made effective, but unity and the perception of forcefulness may ultimately be what matters most here), they will deserve at least equivalent criticism. It's worth noting the contrasts in the Statements section of UNSCR 1696 by, e.g., the US, Russia, and China. While the US clearly appears to consider 1696 to be the final step prior to sanctions if Iran does not cooperate, and a clear intent to implement sanctions if Iran does not cooperate, Russia and China seem to have a more nuanced position, and use much softer language. It's far from clear that Russia's and China's positions have changed much since 1696 was passed. It looks more like all sides are becoming more vocal in promoting their original positions. Posted by: has407 on August 26, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINKrepublicrat: The U.S. tried to sanction Pakistan. It led to stronger relations between Pakistan and the Taliban. US sanctions had no effect on the Pakistan-Taliban relationship. Posted by: has407 on August 26, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINKUsing the UN to stop nations from attaining technology devised in their own countries is what Pres. Ahkmad is talking about when he talks about the victorious nations subjecting others. Who are we to prevent Iran from nuclear, aerospace technologies when we have allowed our vassal states - France, Japan, India, Israel - to have these technologies without sanctions? I hate to say it, but he's right. We're talking invasion over things we have not even given these other nations slaps on the wrists for. Posted by: Crissa on August 26, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINKI guess we had no "authority" to stop Japan or Germany in WWII then either. To stop them from attaining technology? I don't think we had a right then, either, which is rather what started the war. If we'd allowed them to have industry instead of subjegating their economies under huge burdens, maybe we wouldn't have had WWII. Posted by: Crissa on August 26, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINKAre you stupid, Nossel, or just getting paid under the table to enable the warmongers? "Heavy water could be used to produce tritium in a reactor, I think." Jesus freaking christ. Geez couldn't we just resolve this by a good ole fashion UN sanctioned trade embargo/naval blockade? Beats war right? Posted by: padcrasher on August 26, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINKbblog: Isn't Saudi Arabia attempting to acquire a nuclear weapon through their secret nuclear program with Pakistan? Acquire is one word for it, but, "rent-a-nuke" would be a better description. Saudi Arabia apparently hasn't made much of a secret of it, but the reporting and sourcing is very thin (see, e.g., here): Early in 2004, senior Saudi officials announced they were studying the possibility of acquiring or leasing nuclear weapons from China or Pakistan (this would be legal under the NPT so long as the weapons were kept under Chinese or Pakistani control).For example, the weapons would be in Saudi Arabia (possibly mounted on their DF-3/CSS-2 IRBM's, which are capable of carrying nukes), but the fuzing would be under China's or Pakistan's control. Posted by: has407 on August 26, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK This morning Iran opened up a plant that produces heavy water, in blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities. I can think of two things the UN cares about regarding the Iranian nuclear industry:
Heavy water can be used in a reactor used for energy and/or plutonium production. Only if a heavy water reactor gets used for the production lots of plutonium does it defy the NPT right? And even if this move somehow was about plutonium production it would still be a bit early to talk about weapons production. That is, unless you know for a fact that the hypothetical plutonium we are assuming will be created in a (future?) reactor is intended for weapons. Since its theoretically possible that the hypothetical plutonium is intended for glow in the dark hats with matching underwear scaring everyone by talking about weapons production doesn't sound like something UN diplomats would do... that is, unless CNN is translating them ;-) Am I wrong to think heavy water production is scary and monitored, but not against the wishes of the full UN, even for Iran? (assuming it doesn't give it to Dr. Evil or keeps it from the eyes of the IAEA?) If Russia and China back away from concerted and forceful UN action on Iran I would put that: If Russia and China do not step up seeing as neither Russia nor China have been enthusiastic about sanctions for their nuclear high tech trade or oil trade buddy. The spin that Russia promised something may need a closer look. I bet Russia technically only promised to look again, to go with travel sanctions... of Iranian sports teams or to go with whatever the rest wants (Hey China, doesn't agree.... isn't that something) Russia is still supplying Iran with nuclear help and China stopped but isn't looking to screw an oil supplier just right now. Russia thinks it cant lose: a. Iran goes on, it need help, b. Iran is forced to go further away from weapons, it needs light water reactors and outside enrichment help and/or C. The US wants to act and bribes Russia to go for sanctions... And China stopped helping the uranium enrichment program which is why the bits of LEU it has produced will be the only bits Iran will produce for quite some time. Whats with the forceful wording? I known you are not looking to work with those who try rebrand Ahmedinejad as the new Hitler that makes the previous Hitler look like diet Hitler.... (Hint to the secret formula: nuking Israel kills lots of Arabs and plenty of Persians will die in retaliation... all quite drastic for what when looked at in context sounds almost as a call for regime change in Israel. How dare someone call for government that represents the perceived people!) Anyway the AP story Laura Rozen linked to does not (no longer?) contain the despite U.N. demands that Tehran stop the activity because it can be used to develop a nuclear bomb. part Laura quotes... And I trust Laura's quoting. Its one of the few bits of sourcing I do trust ;-) Its still entitled Iran Opens Nuclear Reactor, Defying U.N. Neither fact is true as far as I know... Did Iran open a nuclear reactor? If so what is it doing in a heavy water production process? mood lighting? I mean love building a reactor as much as the next guy, just look at the beautiful blue glow... but at some point you have to ask what was a building again? I made the same mistake the other day, I was halfway trough the dome until I realized that a nuclear reactor isn't the most critical component of a normal garden shed.... I bet that if AP came by they would report I was building a nuclear powered space program. Posted by: abcd on August 26, 2006 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINKThis morning Iran opened up a plant that produces heavy water, in blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities. Suzanne Nossel 9:31 AMUnder Article 5 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, Iran has the right to develop nuclear power. The US, Pakistan and Bush are in violation of Article I for transfer of material and knowledge. You want to restrict a nation that has never attacked anyone within recent history and compare Iran to Japan and Germany both of which were aggressors. You did a better job selling the non-existent threat from Iraq. Don't try to peddle the same bs twice in one corrupt, foul administration. ex-liberal 12:01 PM E.g., when Hezbollah made unprovoked rocket attacks against Israeli civiliansIt certainly doesn't take long for revisionist history to be written from Rigthists: Israel started bombing Lebanon first; Israel is holding thousands of people illegally; Israel didn't keep the 48-hour truce they declared by Hezbollah did. By the way, Republicans attacked Clinton mercilessly for the Kosovo War. Tom DeLay and Trent Lott were even reluctant to pass a resolution supporting our troops. ex-liberal 12:01 PM I didn't want the US to be the world's police force. .If there were an international police force, Bush and Olmert would be judged harshly by it. ex-liberal 12:01 PM In short, I didn't want to see unilateral US action against Iran, but there is no other option.Actually there are a lot and all of them involve the single intelligent act of talking directly with Iran, Syria, and North Korea. The worthless, immature foreign policy of Bush / Cheney is the worst in American history. Iran, like Iraq, is no threat to the US and blowhards like you will NOT join in any unilateral and illegal action. You're inching far too close to the line of common sense minion of rove at 12:37 PMHer post, like the Rovian propaganda on this issue, is overwrought and designed to stampede voters as the build-up to the attack on Iraq did. (meaning our units do not face any meaningful opposition capable of defeating them). Trashhauler at 1:07 PM |Casualties since "Mission Accomplished" U.S. Troops Wounded then: 542 May 2006: 17,469 U.S. Troops Killed then: 139 May 2006: 2,400 The Left is no longer sane.harmony at 2:38 PMBefore the election of 194, Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME) declared that she did not want to see the Republican Party "ride to victory on the four horsemen of calumny ---- fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear." Today, those calumnies are the entire Republican agenda. But Iran has now called the bluff. ajl at 3:21 PMAs has Israel without a whimper of complaint from any rightist. If you want to be serious about UN Resolutions, call for the enforcement of 242 and others first. Pakistan, a country with a track record of war and selling nuclear material and secrets, is expanding its nuclear program. Where's the concern? I've heard nothing from any rightist. This will both increase American military and commercial power republicrat at 5:35 PMLike our Oil boy administration would be interested in any program like that. Their goal is the control of the oil in the Middle East, not reducing it's importance to the US. I question your patriotism. Birkel at 6:29 PMAs a full-fledged suffer of BDS, of course you do. Bush Derangement Syndrome is characterized by overwhelming sycophancy to an incompetent, inarticulate leader who institutes policies inimical to his county's interest and welfare. Those suffering Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS as it is commonly called, are able to make a statement defending their supreme leader on moment, and argue the exact opposite the next. Indeed, most of the suffers of this bizarre disease have no cognitive function when it comes to their gnathonic symptoms. Their motivation is sheer hatred for anyone not sharing their delusions and racist prejudice that lies at the core of their psyche. How about focus on China and Russianpress1for englishat 7:21 PM We are responsible for the actions of our government, not someone else's. China and Russia understandably follow their own interests. Diplomacy is the art of settling differences amicably; Bush is a total incompetent at this. It was our government that said that Iraq was a threat. That has been shown to be a complete fabrication and has nothing to do with either China or Russia. Posted by: Mike on August 26, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK abcd, You're generally correct that this has nothing whatsoever to do with nuclear weapons production, and that the UN has never insisted on anything having to do with Iran's heavy water plant. However (1) It's Suzanne Nossel posting, not Laura Rozen. (2) the statements aren't in quotes, but her interpretation of other reporting. (3) The story is from the BBC, not the AP. (4) The story never contained any statement or implication that "despite U.N. demands that Tehran stop the activity because it can be used to develop a nuclear bomb". Posted by: details on August 26, 2006 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINKthe woman who started this thread is either stupid or ignorant. possibly both. why don't the russkies and the chinamen work to curtail the iranian nuclear program? it takes no genius to figure it out. the goal of replacing the usa as the global dominatrix/dominator has been rekindled by the warmongering foolishness of the bush-cheney regime and the benighted amerikan public. think of bush-cheney as a latter day leonid brezhnev. as jimmy and zbig suckered brezhnev into invading afghanistan[an invasion that precipitated the demise of the ussr], bush-cheney are being suckered into a similarly magnificent folly. putin loves the bush-cheney demented bragadoccio. it has re-floated russia economically because of the iraq war-created rise in hydrocarbon prices. even better, russia may now have supplanted the saudis as having the world's largest hydrocarbon reserves. because of the russian hydrocarbon resources, russia now controls europe, for all practical purposes. some thought that the cold war - the great game - had ended. and perhaps, had the usa not been led by dunces[D's & R's] controlled by perfervid zionists, it might have been. but those countries that had been forced to kow-tow to this evil empire recognized that the bush-cheney gangsterism, which was so intent on looting the us treasury, had resuscitated their chances of owning the usa. in less than eight years, bush-cheney[and their acolytes - D's&R's] will have reduced the usa to the status of a 3rd world power. this evil empire will be the world's largest debtor nation. and will be totally dependent upon the rest of the world for its hydrocarbons. hydrocarbons which if embargoed[similar to what the usa, britain, and the netherlands did to japan in the summer of 1941] will prevent air force jets from flying, usn ships from sailing, the army/the marines from driving anywhere. russia, china....they can read the bones. they realize that the zionist-controlled amerikan government makes decisions now not on what is best for the usa, but on what is best for israel. and since the russian-jewish mafiyah may be running israel, then putin is running the usa. patience and persistence will prevail. especially when the political leadership of this evil empire is in the pockets of the israelis, when the israeli intell services have better dossiers on amerikan pols than does the cia, fbi. the russians, the chinese can be very patient. having recognized that this evil empire is terminally brain-damaged, they know that it is only a matter of time before they can pick the fruit that is north amerika. GOP: However the doves try to spin it, this act certainly seems to be causing serious concern in the international community. Mild concern, yes. But "serious" is a stretch (at least outside the US). Given Iran's stated intentions and record, it came as no surprise, and seems to be viewed by most as Iran taking an opportunity to toot its horn, rather than a reason to circle the wagons. Posted by: has407 on August 26, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINKIf you want to be serious about UN Resolutions, call for the enforcement of 242 and others first. Yes, 242, 338 much more important than all this racket about countries who are not a threat. Grab land and keep it when the whole world agrees it's not yours and you just figured out how to keep the "conflict" going forever... and ever. Posted by: little ole jim from red country on August 26, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINKI love the way these threads tend to bring the real crazies out of the woodwork. They definitely seem to have gotten much worse over the last month or two. I could put up with the usual wailing about creeping fascism; I live in Berkeley, so I hear the same on a fairly regular basis. But now it's like reading Democratic Underground, especially with the explicit Nazi analogies. Speaking of which, the raving anti-Semites are definitely a recent addition; they weren't regulars until very recently. At the same time, people like cmdicely are posting less. Depressing. Hey, does anyone know of a site where calm, rational people with diverse political viewpoints can debate issues without calling eachother pinko traitors or fascist warmongerers? This sure ain't it, which is really a shame because I like reading Kevin's stuff. I'm perplexed by how his readership is so much more extreme. Posted by: Nat on August 26, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINKI love the way these threads tend to bring the real crazies out of the woodwork. Isn't this the same person who just said Iraq WAS a threat? I'm perplexed by how his readership is so much more extreme. It's simple. The trolls want to ruin it for everybody. And it's very much a right-wing phenomenon.
GOP:the Iraqi threat was,I believe,discussed by GWB when he said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that we invaded Iraq because of WMDs that weren't there.(Press Conference 8/21/06) Mike wrote: It certainly doesn't take long for revisionist history to be written from Rigthists: Israel started bombing Lebanon first; Mike is dead wrong. From CBS News: "Hezbollahs unprovoked assault, the missile barrage targeting civilians, and the fear that Israels Lebanon withdrawal and Gaza withdrawal had emboldened extremists and invited violence all united Israels famously fractious society." Posted by: ex-liberal on August 26, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK'Anyone who has proclaimed violence as his method, inexorably must choose lying as his principle.' People seem to be missing a few critical days from the history of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Not to excuse or justify any action, but you might want to read UNIFIL's reports about what was actually happening on the ground during that period (see, e.g., here and here, or if you want some prior context, see here). Posted by: has407 on August 26, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINKGOP: "Mike is dead wrong." You and CBS are dead wrong. Interesting, if your quote is accurate, that CBS seems to be in the propaganda business still. I assume that has407 has linked to accurate info. I'm checking now. Posted by: nepeta on August 26, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINKhas407, Unless my computer is goofy, the only one of your links that works for me is the last one. Posted by: nepeta on August 26, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINKWow...it looks like everyone has run Ms. Nossel and Ms. Rozen off... Well...if were going to get more posts like this one, I for one can't say that I am tremendously disappointed.... Posted by: justmy2 on August 26, 2006 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINKnepeta -- Thanks for the info; it was working the last I checked, and the links appear to be good (or at least properly formed). However, the UN's online document center is notoriously unreliable. If I can find an alternative or mirror I'll post it. Otherwise the only option is to keep trying. Posted by: has407 on August 26, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINKp.s. The last link in my previous post is to UNIFIL's page: Latest Reports of the Secretary-General Those older reports make for interesting reading, and provide the context I was referring to. The reports that describe the time around the outbreak of hostilities are listed on that page as: S/2006/248 19 April 2006, Third semi-annual report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the implementation of resolution 1559 (2004) S/2006/560 21 July 2006 For the period from 21 January 2006 to 18 July 2006 Nat (agreeing with one of our most notorious trolls): Nat, I'm sorry if this all gets too uncivil for your delicate sensibilities. I'm perplexed by how his readership is so much more extreme. Really? You're perplexed? OK. I'll help you out. This administration invaded Iraq without provocation and without permission. It lied about its motives, its objectives and its conduct. This invasion has resulted in an intractable mess. Now, without trying to fix this mess or even talking about it, this same administration is ratcheting up the war talk with Iran, a country that is following international law and, like Iraq, is no threat to the United States. People here, for the most part (I dismiss the unthinking pro-Bush pests), are upset by these developments. People here are not extreme. They are reacting to an extreme situation. Maybe some of the analogies are rash and the language heated, but, from where I sit, rage is a very sensible reaction under the present circumstances. Passionless discourse conducted by self-satisfied fence-sitters such as yourself is just irrelevant right now. The real extremists are in the White House and at the Pentagon. They have real power and they are using it dangerously. Posted by: exasperanto on August 26, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINKGOP -- Annan is visiting a laundry list of countries while he's in the ME. His visit to Tehran was expected and is no surprise. Will the issue be on his agenda? Undoubtedly, and it may have moved up a couple notches. But to suggest his visit to Tehran indicates that the level of concern has significantly increased is a stretch. The level of concern has been high, and it remains so; the heavy water plant is noise. And yeah, Iran rejected the demand that it suspend its uranium enrichment activities. But that's been their position since forever, so there's nothing new there. Agree that the implication a "deterrent" nuclear weapon is new twist, and that if Tehran pursues that line then there needs to be a reevaluation of our strategy. (Not that I think there would be any substantive change in that strategy, as our options are much too constraind.) However, Tehran's pursuit of such a deterrent is far from a given at this point. As to whether Tehran is "interested only in the peaceful uses of nuclear research", I have no fantasies. If Tehran feels sufficiently threatened, or sufficiently aggresive, there is no doubt in my mind that they will do everything possible to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. Whether they feel that is an imperative today is unclear. Whether the US, or any alliance can stop them, is also unclear, although I have serious doubts. Whether Tehran having nukes is the apocalytic scenario many envision is also unclear. What is clear is that is that if Tehran really wants nukes, they will get them, and that there is no one who can stop them. Deal with it. Posted by: has407 on August 27, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINKWow, nice obfuscation Donny. It never ceases to amaze me how you are incapable of even the most basic truthful analysis, and how your whole schtick is to play word games by willfully confusing terms to try and make a case. Sure, Iraq was a threat. Iraq was a threat that we cheered on. Iraq killed millions and we helped by selling it Bell helicopters and dual use chemical agents. Iraq was a proxy threat on our behalf for years, and Saddam was "our" strongman in the Middle East. Another utter hypocrite named Donny met with him in the midst of all Saddam's shenanigans and pledged him support. Who does 1980's Donald Rumsfeld always undermine your arguments? And then Iraq broke free from its puppet strings and was defeated, gutted, and contained -- which is the analysis of military intelligence, by the way -- and you're trying to whip up scare stories about what a frightening threat it remained. Hell, they can't even keep the fucking electricity or sewers running the infrastructure is so shot, but with your psychic abilities you somehow just know that Saddam was going to turn that whole situation around, get nukes, and wreak havoc on the world...despite the fact that either Israel or the U.S. would have turned that country into a silicon skating rink had they tried. Get real, you lame ass. That's just an idiotic analysis coming and going. Actually it's nothing but low-grade propaganda serving a reactionary ideology, bereft of any connection to reality. In fact, the excuse the idiots in this administration are using to absolve themselves for having been utterly wrong on WMD's is that Saddam "lied" about having weapons to scare his neighbors and reassure his military. So why wouldn't he be lying about reconstituting a nuclear program? Why isn't it anything but wishful thinking? Truth is, it wasn't anything but wishful thinking on his part. By the way, assuming an air of superiority and dismisseness when you write doesn't make you appear any less ridiculous than the angry loner that your writing reveals you to be. I imagine it must be tough trying to cmdicely-lite, Salieri to his Mozart. Sometimes its best just to know your place in life. Oh wait, I know -- you're going to use your patented "No I'm not, YOU ARE" technique to put me in my place. Yeah, that takes me all the way back to third grade. I'm sure you're going to spend the next twenty hours trying to mount me over the Internet to show your dominance and post incessantly to prove you're right. Well have fun, I'm calling it a night. Must suck to be a slave to your obsessive compulsive nature. Don't let your girlish little fingers get too tired typing furiously away proving that you're always right, right, RIGHT! Posted by: yep on August 27, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINKGOP: Your comments are so full of error that I don't look forward to correcting them. 1) Kofi Annan's travel to Iran may or may not have to do with consternation with Iran. Annan is undoubtably trying to do everything he can to avoid another brutal US military strike on a ME 2) Iraq was never a threat to the US. The 'mushroom cloud' scenario was a lie, even if Iraq had had a nuclear weapon. Those little wooden unmanned drones were a joke. 3) It's been obvious from the beginning that the US attack on Iran did indeed have to do with the geopolitics of oil. Killing Iraqis is not the way to go about safeguarding our interest in the area. Bush and Blair lied and now they're doing it again with Iran for the same reason. 4) Can you tell me whose side the US supported in the Iraq/Iran war? Iraq, that's right. The US also gave Iraq chemical and biological weapons during that period, including anthrax cultures and mustard gas. 5) The story of the attempted assassination of GHW Bush is a hoax, as is the story of Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators. That one is really a laugh. Turns out it was the Kuwaiti Amb. to the US's daughter who testified to congress on this matter. She hadn't set foot in Kuwait in a very long time. 6) Iraq is located in the ME. Every country in the ME has the potential to disrupt or otherwise interfere with world addicts getting their supply. As stated previously, allies become enemies, etc., etc. US foreign policy that presumes 'ends justify means' is neither moral nor rational. Posted by: nepeta on August 27, 2006 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINKDespite Ms. Nossel's attempts to imbue the Bush position vis a vis Iran with some rationality, all the action, as in the Iraq "adventure", is in the already determined upon decisions not in the public UN spectacle (that academics like Nossel have to take seriously for professional reasons) which is Kabuki-like in going through the necessary theatrics. The real decisions (to go to war or at least bomb the shit out of Iran)have been made already and Nossel plays her role as "impartial" observer like the good actress she aspires to be. in fact her role is as a Bush enabler. Posted by: della Rovere on August 27, 2006 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINKI cannot think when a guest blogger has provoked such a firestorm of richly deserved approbation and scorn. The last part of the last sentence was in itself awesomely nuts. If diplomatic efforts fail, then I think a military intervention is almost inevitable. I sure hope the Bush administration doesn't maneuvre us into a situation where our choices are a nuclear Iran or unilateral attack. Posted by: Boronx on August 27, 2006 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINKNat: At the same time, people like cmdicely are posting less. Depressing. Despair not; he comes and goes. I expect he'll be back. Posted by: republicrat on August 27, 2006 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINKhas407: Given Iran's stated intentions and record, it came as no surprise, and seems to be viewed by most as Iran taking an opportunity to toot its horn, rather than a reason to circle the wagons. One of Iran's stated intentions is to destroy Israel, so it is more serious than you suggest. Posted by: republicrat on August 27, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINKGOP: Britain and France already introduced a Security Council resolution specifically calling on Iran to halt construction of its heavy water reactor. No shit! One more time for the mentally challenged... (1) a "heavy water reactor" is not a "heay water plant"; (2) the heavy water plant has never been a "serious issue", or for that matter any "issue", whether with the IAEA, the UNSC; (3) the resolutions do not call for a "halt", but for Iran to "reconsider" the construction of the "heavy water reactor". We obviously have the means to stop Iran from acquiring the capability to develop nuclear weapons. Obviously. Have fun knocking yourself out with whatever army you can paste together. Dont' forget to pack lots of sulfides. Posted by: has407 on August 27, 2006 at 2:56 AM | PERMALINKWhat is going on here is another attack on the UN. Remember before the Iraq invasion when Bush and the neocons were saying that the UN was risking "irrelevance" if it didn't authorize force? The same seems to be happening now. Susanne Nossel is articulating what seems to be the next round of intimidation of the UN. She is more interested in pushing the theme that the UN is risking irrelevance again than she is in the Iran question. To see this, look at her latest post at democracyarsenal.org (which also appeared on Huffington Post). There, she is again focusing on the fact that the UN will become irrelevant if it does not accept the US line -- but in that case, she is talking about Lebanon. There seems to be a renewed attack against the UN going on, and my guess is we will start hearing a a lot more about this UN "irrelevance" theme on Fox News again. Posted by: JS on August 27, 2006 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINKI don't think the world owes the US much of anything by way of cooperation at the UN. Its pretty clear that Bolton is running another sham bs dog and pony campaign on behalf of the Chimp. When you don't trust a country, when you don't believe a word that is said on its behalf, and when you catch it out in lie after lie after lie, when you see its bloody bullying campaigns and scattered cluster bombs in living colour on your tv (even though American viewers cannot), there can only be one response to this attempt to secure support for yet another war of aggression. And that answer is a definitive Get Stuffed! Expect no support on this matter. Yes Iranian politicos are hard cases, yes they would very much like to have a nuclear deterrent, and yes, the regime will probably be supplanted by internal dynamics eventually. But nobody and I mean NOBODY outside of the US wants to see you destroy whats left of your professional military in another feckless imperial war. If you lose again this time, there won't be enough combat strength left in the American military to invade Jamaica. Hey, maybe thats a big positive after all. Pitiful Helpless Giant; go for it. Posted by: anon on August 27, 2006 at 3:34 AM | PERMALINKThis article is absolute bullshit. Given the USA's recent actions, Iran's leadership would be failing in it's duty to protect it's citizens if it wasn't doing everything possible to acquire nuclear weapons. I suspect Russia and China actually realize this, and are just being polite at the UN, trying to talk the USA down, like you would a drunk uncle at a family wedding who's threatening to heat somebody. Posted by: AlanP on August 27, 2006 at 4:11 AM | PERMALINK"I cannot think when a guest blogger has provoked such a firestorm of richly deserved approbation and scorn. The last part of the last sentence was in itself awesomely nuts." Yes. How dare a good progressive imply that anyone but Amerikkka could be at fault for the problems of the world! And to criticize Russia and China, the last hope of the world in the face of the imperialist oppressors! Other than France, of course. Posted by: kofi on August 27, 2006 at 4:17 AM | PERMALINKBTW, love all the people coming to the defense of Iran, justifying Iran, making excuses for Iran, and explaining why it's a good thing for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Warms the heart, it does. Reminds me of the Cold War, when the same kind of people sided with the Soviets and their puppets every time. Posted by: kofi on August 27, 2006 at 4:28 AM | PERMALINKGOP: What's the military objective in Iran, and how can the U.S. possibly achieve it? Posted by: DevilDog on August 27, 2006 at 4:38 AM | PERMALINKGive me a break. GOP, you are Hiroo Onoda, the Japanese fighter pilot that terrorized Lubang island by continuing to fight WWII for 29 years after it was over. This in spite of every attempt to inform him, by local and distant pleas. His terror included the killing of civilians as they hung their laundry at their rural homes. Like him, you are completely devoted to your cause, and see yourself as a patriot. Also like him, you suffer from the paranoia of being alone, and have no remorse for those that have died innocently as a result of your (ie Bush's) delusional thinking. gop: Iraq was a threat
2003 invasion: 150k troops rummy originally only wanted to use 50k... some threat... BTW, love all the people coming to the defense of Iran, justifying Iran, making excuses for Iran, and explaining why it's a good thing for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Warms the heart, it does. Reminds me of the Cold War, when the same kind of people sided with the Soviets and their puppets every time. Au contraire,, Kofi. It's you who would have been the good little Soviet Commissar. In contrast a hell of a lot of the readers here, trying to make their own pocket of thought, would have died in Siberian concentration camps. Trying to paint it any other way is pure bullshit. Odds on, you would have been a cheerleader for whatever ideology you grew up with. The backbone of all tyrannies are yes men like you. It was ever thus. Oh, did I tell you to fuck off? If I didn't it was an oversight. As graciously and as pleasantly as I can put it, fuck off. It's so sad that, in this day and age when we have the Internet and 10,000 years of human knowledge at our fingertips, we have idiots like kofi, GOP, Al, American Hawk and others, who can't differentiate between opposing the use of warfare as an instrument of foreign policy and "supporting" an enemy of the U.S. like Iran. One question for you retards - How did you feel when Ronald Reagan and Bush the Elder I would appreciate knowing what is the legal basis for saying that Iran is the only nation in the world that does not have the right to enrich uranium to reactor grade. Posted by: Donald Feldman on August 27, 2006 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINKSermon and declaration of Crusade ( holy war) in Britain. Issued by the Lions of Yah'shua in alliance with the brothers in the Army of God and Phinehas Priesthood in the U.K Besides these facts,we are well aware that Christ had taught the widely misinterpreted 'turn the other cheek' policy only to thoughs disciples which he had chosen to send out on missionary duty.This was a strategic decision taken by Yah'shua for the simple reason that the Jewish authorities were awaiting any opportunity,any excuse;to arrest him and his disciples.Therefore it was only logical not to afford them such an opportunity ! Therefore ye Lions of Yahushua,ye Phinehas priests; you are to conduct holy war ,but with the strictest observance of the law.You are to conform to the law of war has given by God(Yahweh). (read Deuteronomy 20;1-20 , Numbers 25;1-8 , Numbers 25;11-14 ,1 Samuel 15;1-28).
(This was a confederate statement issued on behalf of the Lions of Yah'shua,Phinehas priesthood and Army Of God In The UK) Websites we endorse; www.armyofgod.com Indictment. You despise men of faith because you despise the word ! To those who are unrepentant, you are handed over to Satan and may the death of a thousand cuts be upon you and hell consume your bodies ! AMEN. Posted by: Ishmael on August 27, 2006 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINKJust for the record,I'm a 23 year Iran christian and live here very happily with my wife and three children.We are not persecuted,Christians have reserved seats in parliament and we do not see ourselves as being part of an axis of evil just because we want to maintain our way of life and not have a mcdonalds on every street corner. God bless you, Mamoud. Please understand that not all Americans think like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The truly Christian people of the United States want to reach out a hand of peace to all people, Iranians, Afghanis, Arabs, Muslims and others. We recognize that we are all God's people and just want peace and understanding for our children and their children. Do not assume all Americans are like our evil leaders... Posted by: Stephen Kriz on August 27, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINKMan, Kevin is gonna be pissed! He takes the weekend off and he has jihadis swearing out fatwas on his blog, not to mention nutbird Christian loonies spewing Kumbaya refrains and the regulars are ready to revolt over the guest bloggers! Shee-itt!! It don't pay to take a vacation, does it, Kevin? Posted by: Joe Bob Briggs on August 27, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINKMcdonalds and Survivor (tm) can not be stopped. It is simply inevitible. We will crush you with our billboards, pink flamingos, miniature golf course theme parks, gambling, and topless bars. We observe no god but hedonism. Our president is temptation personified, swinging a star spangled hoolahoop and riding an apocalypse horse that's jumping a shark. Posted by: political chipmunk on August 27, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINKJoe Bob Briggs: ROTFLMAO!!!! Looks like the guest bloggers decided shop closed Saturday Morning... Posted by: justmy2 on August 27, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK酷站推荐:北京旅行社厂向广大客户提供旅行社产品及旅行社服务。您要想寻找汽车租赁信息请到汽车租赁网站，各种汽车租赁信息应有尽有。您要想寻找汽车租赁信息请到汽车租赁网站，各种汽车租赁信息应有尽有。上海汽车租赁厂向客户提供汽车租赁产品及汽车租赁服务。您要想寻找汽车租赁信息请到汽车租赁网站，各种汽车租赁信息应有尽有。上海汽车租赁厂向客户提供汽车租赁产品及汽车租赁服务。汽车租赁网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的汽车租赁,丰富的汽车租赁行业资讯助您成交。想要了解汽车租赁吗？请到中国汽车租赁网来寻找汽车租赁的信息。北京汽车租赁厂向广大客户提供汽车租赁产品及汽车租赁服务。北京汽车租赁厂向广大客户提供汽车租赁产品及汽车租赁服务。汽车租赁网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的汽车租赁,丰富的汽车租赁行业资讯助您成交。上海汽车租赁厂向客户提供汽车租赁产品及汽车租赁服务。北京上海汽车租赁厂向广大客户提供上海汽车租赁产品及上海汽车租赁服务。上海上海汽车租赁厂向客户提供上海汽车租赁产品及上海汽车租赁服务。中国上海租车网，打造上海租车领域专业搜索平台，提供全球上海租车产品展示。中国上海租车网，打造上海租车领域专业搜索平台，提供全球上海租车产品展示。想要了解上海租车吗？请到中国上海租车网来寻找上海租车的信息。上海租车网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的上海租车,丰富的上海租车行业资讯助您成交。想要了解上海租车吗？请到中国上海租车网来寻找上海租车的信息。上海汽车租赁厂向客户提供汽车租赁产品及汽车租赁服务。上海租车网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的上海租车,丰富的上海租车行业资讯助您成交。北京上海租车厂向广大客户提供上海租车产品及上海租车服务。上海上海租车厂生产的上海租车产品质量过关，欢迎选购上海租车。想要了解租车吗？请到中国租车网来寻找租车的信息。想要了解租车吗？请到中国租车网来寻找租车的信息。上海租车厂向客户提供租车产品及租车服务。中国租车网，打造租车领域专业搜索平台，提供全球租车产品展示。想要了解租车吗？请到中国租车网来寻找租车的信息。上海租车厂向客户提供租车产品及租车服务。上海租车厂生产的租车产品质量过关，欢迎选购租车。您要想寻找租车信息请到租车网站，各种租车信息应有尽有。中国租车网，打造租车领域专业搜索平台，提供全球租车产品展示。中国租车网，打造租车领域专业搜索平台，提供全球租车产品展示。您要想寻找租车信息请到租车网站，各种租车信息应有尽有。上海租车厂向客户提供租车产品及租车服务。想要了解租车吗？请到中国租车网来寻找租车的信息。上海租车厂向客户提供租车产品及租车服务。想要了解租车吗？请到中国租车网来寻找租车的信息。您要想寻找租车信息请到租车网站，各种租车信息应有尽有。您要想寻找租车信息请到租车网站，各种租车信息应有尽有。您要想寻找租车信息请到租车网站，各种租车信息应有尽有。租车网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的租车,丰富的租车行业资讯助您成交。上海租车厂生产的租车产品质量过关，欢迎选购租车。上海租车厂向客户提供租车产品及租车服务。您要想寻找租车信息请到租车网站，各种租车信息应有尽有。上海租车厂向客户提供租车产品及租车服务。想要了解租车吗？请到中国租车网来寻找租车的信息。租车网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的租车,丰富的租车行业资讯助您成交。租车网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的租车,丰富的租车行业资讯助您成交。想要了解租车吗？请到中国租车网来寻找租车的信息。中国租车网，打造租车领域专业搜索平台，提供全球租车产品展示。您要想寻找租车信息请到租车网站，各种租车信息应有尽有。上海租车厂生产的租车产品质量过关，欢迎选购租车。租车网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的租车,丰富的租车行业资讯助您成交。上海租车厂向客户提供租车产品及租车服务。上海汽车租赁厂生产的汽车租赁产品质量过关，欢迎选购汽车租赁。中国租车网，打造租车领域专业搜索平台，提供全球租车产品展示。您要想寻找租车信息请到租车网站，各种租车信息应有尽有。您要想寻找租车信息请到租车网站，各种租车信息应有尽有。想要了解租车吗？请到中国租车网来寻找租车的信息。上海租车厂生产的租车产品质量过关，欢迎选购租车。上海上海租车厂生产的上海租车产品质量过关，欢迎选购上海租车。 酷站推荐:上海出境旅游厂向客户提供出境旅游产品及出境旅游服务。上海打折机票厂向客户提供打折机票产品及打折机票服务。中国打折机票网，打造打折机票领域专业搜索平台，提供全球打折机票产品展示。您要想寻找打折机票信息请到打折机票网站，各种打折机票信息应有尽有。上海飞机票厂生产的飞机票产品质量过关，欢迎选购飞机票。您要想寻找福彩3D信息请到福彩3D网站，各种福彩3D信息应有尽有。上海国际旅游厂生产的国际旅游产品质量过关，欢迎选购国际旅游。北京火车时刻表厂向广大客户提供火车时刻表产品及火车时刻表服务。北京机票厂向广大客户提供机票产品及机票服务。北京机票厂向广大客户提供机票产品及机票服务。想要了解机票吗？请到中国机票网来寻找机票的信息。机票查询网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的机票查询,丰富的机票查询行业资讯助您成交。上海旅行社厂生产的旅行社产品质量过关，欢迎选购旅行社。北京旅行社厂向广大客户提供旅行社产品及旅行社服务。您要想寻找旅行社信息请到旅行社网站，各种旅行社信息应有尽有。北京国际旅行社厂向广大客户提供国际旅行社产品及国际旅行社服务。想要了解旅行社 吗？请到中国旅行社 网来寻找旅行社 的信息。您要想寻找旅行社信息请到旅行社网站，各种旅行社信息应有尽有。上海国际旅行社厂生产的国际旅行社产品质量过关，欢迎选购国际旅行社。想要了解上海机票预定吗？请到中国上海机票预定网来寻找上海机票预定的信息。北京上海机票厂向广大客户提供上海机票产品及上海机票服务。上海旅游网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的上海旅游,丰富的上海旅游行业资讯助您成交。您要想寻找上海特价机票信息请到上海特价机票网站，各种上海特价机票信息应有尽有。上海深圳旅行社厂生产的深圳旅行社产品质量过关，欢迎选购深圳旅行社。想要了解深圳旅行社吗？请到中国深圳旅行社网来寻找深圳旅行社的信息。北京特价机票厂向广大客户提供特价机票产品及特价机票服务。想要了解特价机票吗？请到中国特价机票网来寻找特价机票的信息。想要了解特价机票吗？请到中国特价机票网来寻找特价机票的信息。上海特价机票厂向客户提供特价机票产品及特价机票服务。您要想寻找武夷山信息请到武夷山网站，各种武夷山信息应有尽有。您要想寻找武夷山酒店信息请到武夷山酒店网站，各种武夷山酒店信息应有尽有。武夷山旅游网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的武夷山旅游,丰富的武夷山旅游行业资讯助您成交。中国云南旅游网，打造云南旅游领域专业搜索平台，提供全球云南旅游产品展示。想要了解北京租房吗？请到中国北京租房网来寻找北京租房的信息。 酷站推荐:上海新丝路国际商务旅行社提供各种飞机票包括打折机票、特价机票、国际机票等上海机票；除机票预定外，还提供火车票查询。购上海机票及飞往各地机票请至上海尚游旅行社，提供打折机票、特价机票、国际机票等各种飞机票。上海国际机票网还提供其他旅行社的打折机票、特价机票和国际机票等。 酷站推荐:条码打印机网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的条码打印机,丰富的条码打印机行业资讯助您成交。条码机网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的条码机,丰富的条码机行业资讯助您成交。您要想寻找拓展训练信息请到拓展训练网站，各种拓展训练信息应有尽有。北京拓展厂向广大客户提供拓展产品及拓展服务。北京注册公司厂向广大客户提供注册公司产品及注册公司服务。上海注册公司厂向客户提供注册公司产品及注册公司服务。北京如何注册公司厂向广大客户提供如何注册公司产品及如何注册公司服务。您要想寻找注册公司信息请到注册公司网站，各种注册公司信息应有尽有。注册公司网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的注册公司,丰富的注册公司行业资讯助您成交。想要了解注册公司吗？请到中国注册公司网来寻找注册公司的信息。注册公司网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的注册公司,丰富的注册公司行业资讯助您成交。注册公司网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的注册公司,丰富的注册公司行业资讯助您成交。想要了解注册公司吗？请到中国注册公司网来寻找注册公司的信息。您要想寻找注册公司信息请到注册公司网站，各种注册公司信息应有尽有。注册公司网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的注册公司,丰富的注册公司行业资讯助您成交。上海注册上海公司厂向客户提供注册上海公司产品及注册上海公司服务。 酷站推荐:上海搬场厂生产的搬场产品质量过关，欢迎选购搬场。北京搬场厂向广大客户提供搬场产品及搬场服务。上海搬场厂生产的搬场产品质量过关，欢迎选购搬场。北京搬场厂向广大客户提供搬场产品及搬场服务。中国搬场网，打造搬场领域专业搜索平台，提供全球搬场产品展示。中国搬场网，打造搬场领域专业搜索平台，提供全球搬场产品展示。中国搬场网，打造搬场领域专业搜索平台，提供全球搬场产品展示。您要想寻找搬场信息请到搬场网站，各种搬场信息应有尽有。搬场网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的搬场,丰富的搬场行业资讯助您成交。上海搬场公司厂生产的搬场公司产品质量过关，欢迎选购搬场公司。中国搬场公司网，打造搬场公司领域专业搜索平台，提供全球搬场公司产品展示。上海搬场公司厂生产的搬场公司产品质量过关，欢迎选购搬场公司。北京搬场厂向广大客户提供搬场产品及搬场服务。您要想寻找搬家信息请到搬家网站，各种搬家信息应有尽有。您要想寻找搬家信息请到搬家网站，各种搬家信息应有尽有。北京搬家厂向广大客户提供搬家产品及搬家服务。想要了解搬场吗？请到中国搬场网来寻找搬场的信息。想要了解保安公司吗？请到中国保安公司网来寻找保安公司的信息。上海陈安之厂生产的陈安之产品质量过关，欢迎选购陈安之。中国陈安之课程网，打造陈安之课程领域专业搜索平台，提供全球陈安之课程产品展示。上海成功学厂向客户提供成功学产品及成功学服务。您要想寻找成功学信息请到成功学网站，各种成功学信息应有尽有。中国上海翻译公司网，打造上海翻译公司领域专业搜索平台，提供全球上海翻译公司产品展示。您要想寻找画廊信息请到画廊网站，各种画廊信息应有尽有。您要想寻找加盟信息请到加盟网站，各种加盟信息应有尽有。想要了解家教吗？请到中国家教网来寻找家教的信息。您要想寻找进口商信息请到进口商网站，各种进口商信息应有尽有。上海论文厂生产的论文产品质量过关，欢迎选购论文。起名网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的起名,丰富的起名行业资讯助您成交。取名网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的取名,丰富的取名行业资讯助您成交。您要想寻找取名信息请到取名网站，各种取名信息应有尽有。北京上海搬场公司厂向广大客户提供上海搬场公司产品及上海搬场公司服务。北京上海搬家公司厂向广大客户提供上海搬家公司产品及上海搬家公司服务。上海上海搬家公司厂向客户提供上海搬家公司产品及上海搬家公司服务。北京上海婚庆厂向广大客户提供上海婚庆产品及上海婚庆服务。您要想寻找上海火车票查询信息请到上海火车票查询网站，各种上海火车票查询信息应有尽有。物流网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的物流,丰富的物流行业资讯助您成交。想要了解西装吗？请到中国西装网来寻找西装的信息。写字楼网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的写字楼,丰富的写字楼行业资讯助您成交。中国余世维网，打造余世维领域专业搜索平台，提供全球余世维产品展示。上海余世维厂向客户提供余世维产品及余世维服务。您要想寻找曾仕强信息请到曾仕强网站，各种曾仕强信息应有尽有。曾仕强网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的曾仕强,丰富的曾仕强行业资讯助您成交。私家侦探网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的私家侦探,丰富的私家侦探行业资讯助您成交。中国专卖店装饰设计网，打造专卖店装饰设计领域专业搜索平台，提供全球专卖店装饰设计产品展示。 酷站推荐:上海企业形象设计厂向客户提供企业形象设计产品及企业形象设计服务。上海包装设计厂生产的包装设计产品质量过关，欢迎选购包装设计。中国包装设计网，打造包装设计领域专业搜索平台，提供全球包装设计产品展示。想要了解标志设计吗？请到中国标志设计网来寻找标志设计的信息。上海外观设计厂向客户提供外观设计产品及外观设计服务。上海广告策划厂向客户提供广告策划产品及广告策划服务。想要了解广告机吗？请到中国广告机网来寻找广告机的信息。上海广告设计厂生产的广告设计产品质量过关，欢迎选购广告设计。广告设计网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的广告设计,丰富的广告设计行业资讯助您成交。您要想寻找企业形象设计信息请到企业形象设计网站，各种企业形象设计信息应有尽有。您要想寻找三面翻信息请到三面翻网站，各种三面翻信息应有尽有。中国上海广告公司网，打造上海广告公司领域专业搜索平台，提供全球上海广告公司产品展示。您要想寻找上海博扬信息请到上海博扬网站，各种上海博扬信息应有尽有。您要想寻找样本设计信息请到样本设计网站，各种样本设计信息应有尽有。 酷站推荐:中国翻译公司网，打造翻译公司领域专业搜索平台，提供全球翻译公司产品展示。想要了解展会制作吗？请到中国展会制作网来寻找展会制作的信息。想要了解美容美发培训学校吗？请到中国美容美发培训学校网来寻找美容美发培训学校的信息。北京明略厂向广大客户提供明略产品及明略服务。想要了解市场调查吗？请到中国市场调查网来寻找市场调查的信息。想要了解市场调研吗？请到中国市场调研网来寻找市场调研的信息。上海市场调研厂向客户提供市场调研产品及市场调研服务。北京市场研究厂向广大客户提供市场研究产品及市场研究服务。您要想寻找拓展培训信息请到拓展培训网站，各种拓展培训信息应有尽有。上海拓展训练厂向客户提供拓展训练产品及拓展训练服务。中国营销策划网，打造营销策划领域专业搜索平台，提供全球营销策划产品展示。 酷站推荐:中国安徽企业名录网，打造安徽企业名录领域专业搜索平台，提供全球安徽企业名录产品展示。中国北京企业名录网，打造北京企业名录领域专业搜索平台，提供全球北京企业名录产品展示。上海福建企业名录厂生产的福建企业名录产品质量过关，欢迎选购福建企业名录。上海广西企业名录厂向客户提供广西企业名录产品及广西企业名录服务。您要想寻找河北企业名录信息请到河北企业名录网站，各种河北企业名录信息应有尽有。想要了解河南企业名录吗？请到中国河南企业名录网来寻找河南企业名录的信息。上海湖北企业名录厂向客户提供湖北企业名录产品及湖北企业名录服务。中国湖南企业名录网，打造湖南企业名录领域专业搜索平台，提供全球湖南企业名录产品展示。北京江苏企业名录厂向广大客户提供江苏企业名录产品及江苏企业名录服务。您要想寻找江西企业名录信息请到江西企业名录网站，各种江西企业名录信息应有尽有。上海辽宁企业名录厂向客户提供辽宁企业名录产品及辽宁企业名录服务。您要想寻找名录信息请到名录网站，各种名录信息应有尽有。名录网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的名录,丰富的名录行业资讯助您成交。想要了解山东企业名录吗？请到中国山东企业名录网来寻找山东企业名录的信息。上海山西企业名录厂向客户提供山西企业名录产品及山西企业名录服务。中国四川企业名录网，打造四川企业名录领域专业搜索平台，提供全球四川企业名录产品展示。北京浙江企业名录厂向广大客户提供浙江企业名录产品及浙江企业名录服务。 酷站推荐:上海电影厂向客户提供电影产品及电影服务。北京免费电影厂向广大客户提供免费电影产品及免费电影服务。北京免费电影厂向广大客户提供免费电影产品及免费电影服务。中国免费电影网，打造免费电影领域专业搜索平台，提供全球免费电影产品展示。 酷站推荐:Google排名网上市场，为您提供质优价廉的Google排名,丰富的Google排名行业资讯助您成交。上海网站优化厂向客户提供网站优化产品及网站优化服务。 Posted by: dd on August 27, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINKIt would help if folks who post here bothered to LEARN something, first. Consider this: "Bay Of Pigs... failures ... which you might notice didn't lead to the end of the world or even close to it..." The Cuban Missile Crisis doesn't ring a bell? It's about as plain as history can make it that Castro became scared and Kruschev more bold after the Bay of Pigs, which led directly to the most provocative act of the Cold War, and damned near nuclear war between the US and the USSR. That Kennedy managed to pull off a diplomatic resolution of the Crisis didn't mean it wasn't damned close to "the end of the world" -- and it was PRECISELY because of the Bay of Pigs. Posted by: theAmericanist on August 27, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINKWhat is Theonomy? To learn more about Biblical law, go to; www.armyofgod.com _______________________________ WOW, has Timothy Mcveigh possessed half the peeps on this site today :O Goodness me, the KKK must be having a field day ! Posted by: Paul on August 27, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINKMamoud and Stephen Kriz Your touching duet would be alot more pleasing to me if I did not know that pregnant teenage girls are murdered by firing squad in Iran, for the sin of being members of the Baha'i faith. I agree Iran is probably going to join Pakistan in the nuclear "club." I also know this will, of course, be America's fault because the trendy left sees all problems through a Freudian window where America's action, or inaction, or both, has caused everything wrong in the third world since 1492: the last 160 comments is good evidence of that. Brigham Young's blood atonement sermon of 1867: All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Yah'shua HaMashiach(Jesus Christ) meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness, never. He never intended any such thing.... Jesus Christ never meant that we should love a wicked man in his wickedness...." To learn more about Biblical law go to;www.armyofgod.com
Brigham Young's blood atonement sermon of 1856: "There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants." 1 Young indicates that Yah'shua' (Jesus Christ)death on the cross can never wipe out an individual's serious personal sin. The sinner's own blood must be shed to atone for the sin. The sinner must be murdered and his or her blood spilled on the ground. To learn more about Biblical law go to ;
Dale Johnsen: "Throughout Yah'shua' life (JesusChrist' life) on earth, He obeyed all of God's law perfectly. Of all the 613 commands [in the Mosaic code], He obeyed every single one that applied to Him. He is the only One who ever did this. Thus, through His perfectly sinless life, fulfilled the law on behalf of a sinful human race which was unable to keep it."
To state that the Messiah did not bring a new religion almost feels like stating the A misunderstanding of what Torah is, is the basis of this idea. Also the mixing of Other sites we endorse;www.armyofgod.com Take heart, at least the cockroaches who will be the real winners after WWIII, will need some humans to restock the refrigerator and heat the homes for the new planetary rulers. Posted by: Elaine Supkis on August 27, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINKNo more pre-emptive wars and stop the lying. Mortar rounds land inside Baghdad's Green Zone every day- many dont explode. The Iraqi government cowers inside the Green Zone, afraid of its people. Every year brings a larger number of Iraqi dead. One day after the British left Camp Abu Naji near Amara, the thousands of dollars worth of equipment that had been left for the Iraqi police was looted and destroyed. Kurdistan is a powder keg about to explode. We have a talented government-they have an amazing ability to make complex problems worse. Neocon spokesman Max Boot wants us or Israel to attack Syria. Idiotic and attacking Iran would be idiotic. Continuing the insane Iraq war is crazy. The only thing worth discussing is how to leave Iraq without all of our bases and equipment being looted as happened at Camp Abu Naji. All our money is going to the military, to Iraq and to idiotic toys like the F-22 Raptor. Our people, our infrastructure is decaying. What comes first? Feed the military or build a sustainable country? Politicians cant discuss priorities until they stop lying. Details: abcd, (1) It's Suzanne Nossel posting, not Laura Rozen. (2) the statements aren't in quotes, but her interpretation of other reporting. (3) The story is from the BBC, not the AP. (4) The story never contained any statement or implication that "despite U.N. demands that Tehran stop the activity because it can be used to develop a nuclear bomb". Oops, I screwed up a link there, and should made it more clear that my criticism of the AP story Laura Rozen pointed to was separate from my criticism of the Nossel grandparent post. So the last paragraphs were a tirade against the AP story Laura links here: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004811.html GOP: We obviously have the means to stop Iran from acquiring the capability to develop nuclear weapons. If Iran does continue to pursue such a capability--and it seems to be giving every indication that it will--then the only questions are whether, when and how we will act to stop them. GOP: No, Iraq under Saddam was always a threat to the U.S. Iraq has been a constant source of conflict and instability in the middle east for two decades For a long time the popular argument was that with Saddam in power there would be little conflict inside Iraq and in its conflicts with its neighbors Iraq would be accommodating to the US. It also would not be to sweet with the local assorted religious nuts. At least, thats what people argued. Whoever are in charge in Iran don't want nukes, unless maybe for esthetics's. (Great 60`s style window dressing) They may want something nukes can give them, like security or power projection rivaling the US. If it is security they want then there is a race who can provide them that security the fastest. There is the diplomats on one side who might one day offer enough security guarantees and a stop of foreign attempts at yet another coup. And on the other side there are the nuclear engineers racing to build all the dual use infrastructure needed to threaten to create nuclear weapons every day of the week, if not just create, test and weaponize them. Right now Iran is allowed to bet on both horses and the neocon cabal kicks down every attempt to revive the diplomatic race team. They are betting on their dark horse, named Elizabeth Cheney... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2070419,00.html (sorry liz, its just the metaphor) They bet on another Ukraine, Georgia and Lebanon ignoring the Tianaman/Andijon/Iraqi Shiite uprising/Syrian uprising odds. (To say nothing of the Exiles running away with the Intel and money odds) Meanwhile the Iranian government is scared more by the prospect of even more protests http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=iran+protest+satellite+tv At this pace it doesn't matter how slow and in need of foreign help the nuclear engineers are. They either win the race, or there is a coup... after which they win the race with a nuclear program that still has popular support. BTW, love all the people coming to the defense of Iran, justifying Iran, making excuses for Iran, and explaining why it's a good thing for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Rationally acknowledging the benefits of an action to someone is not the same as approving an action. I know that babyeaters eat babies to still their hunger for babybrains. That doesn't mean I approve. It does help explain my search for tofu babies, which is an indication how I feel about baby eating. Posted by: abcd on August 27, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINKWhy do you hate America? Once you resort to this hoary chestnut, you've lost the argument. Take heart, at least the cockroaches who will be the real winners after WWIII, will need some humans to restock the refrigerator and heat the homes for the new planetary rulers. The cockroaches and Keith Richards will survive man's destruction of the planet. But Keith won't live long without fresh blood. Posted by: Reprobate on August 27, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINKThe US, Pakistan and Bush are in violation of Article I for transfer of material and knowledge. Er, to whom did the US transfer material and knowledge in violation of Article I of the NPT? The nuclear accords that bush wants to sign with India and Pakistan in violation of NPT. Posted by: Peter on August 27, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK Airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. they're underground and fortified--try again. Posted by: GOP is a dumbshit on August 27, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINKAs the long history of Saddam's aggression and attacks I described demonstrates, Iraq under Saddam was obviously a threat. uh, yeah, but he was no longer a threat since he was contained and isolated, including the control of his airspace. DUH. He was completely impotent in 2002, as opposed to multiple other countries which posed a much more real threat. Posted by: GOP is a dumbshit on August 27, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINKNo, they're not--try again. Yes, they are. Good comeback there, Potsy. Sorry to whoever Stefan is, since GOP is too much of a dumbshit to know who I am. LOL, I love it! Posted by: GOP is a dumbshit on August 27, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINKI have an IQ of 35, and am what scientists call "completely retarded". Posted by: GOP on August 27, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINKSaddam also wanted to create a magic pony factory, and believed that Santa Claus would bring him a nuclear ICBM. Thanks for proving that Saddam was no threat compared to multiple countries who actually had such weapons and were actually developing them. GOP-- is, was, and always will be a dumbshit. Posted by: GOP is a dumbshit on August 27, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINKHas anyone here ever had sex with a woman? What's that like? Posted by: GOP on August 27, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINKGOP takes the bait every time. So easy to play with a mental midget. LOL, I love it! Posted by: haha on August 27, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK"The US's fellow UN members have in recent years accused us - rightly at times, of sidestepping and denigrating the world body. But if Russia and China do not stand by the UN's resolution and back up the offer of incentives dangled before Iranian President Ahmadinejad with penalties now that the overture has been rebuffed, it is they - not the US - that will undermine the United Nations." The U.N. has often been accused by the far left of being the "battered spouse" of U.S. foreign policy. Sounds right to me. Call me when Russia or China organize a U.N. led force to pound the shit out of some hapless third world state, then I'll say you're on to something. What is it with these Liberals that they constantly feel the need to establish their war cred by joining the "Iran is evil" chorus? Isn't it obvious that the maze of U.N. resolutions regarding Iran are U.S. backed and will ultimately provide the pretext -- "We've exhausted all diplomatic options!" -- for a strike on Iran? In other words, when will the the feeble minded Democrats and their pathetic little strategists begin to forumulate a real alternative to the Cheney administration's strategy of perpetual war against Islam? Posted by: smedleybutler on August 27, 2006 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK GOP: The heavy water plant produces heavy water needed by the heavy water reactor. I understand the connection, and that it is ultimately of concern. However, IIRC the heavy water plant will produce about 15-20 tons/year, and the reactor will require about 75-100 tons. Do the math. I have no idea why you think the Osiraq airstrike wasn't successful. The Israeli strike succeeded in destroying the Osiraq reactor. It did not succeed in destroying Iraq's nuclear weapons program, and stimulated a much larger effort by Iraq. Posted by: has407 on August 27, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINKI was so scared by Saddam's non-existant weapons, I still sleep with the lights on. Posted by: GOP on August 27, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINKPaul, hate to break it to you, but I ain't Stefan. GOP is just to stupid to figure it out. He needs someone to lash out at though, because that's what mature and intelligent people do. Like George Bush. I'm still lovin' it. Posted by: GOP is a dumbshit on August 27, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINKwww.armyofgod.com Who are we kidding....the UN is a paper tiger and nothing it does will stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons if it chooses to. Since the UN has no military force capable of enforcing its decisions, all it can do is rely on easily circumvented economic sanctions. Since Iran is certainly smart enough to put it facilities underground where they are protected from bombing, there is not military solution either. The only solution is to accept the fact that Iran will develop nuclear weapons no matter what we do and try to develop a balance of power much like exists with India and Pakistan by using the theory of mutually assured destruction (MAD). To start with, the US needs to communicate to Iran that we will have a significant number of warheads trained on Teheran, and should Iran ever launch whatever nuclear weapons they are able to develop Teheran will be obliterated. Secondly, we need to make sure that another country in the region also has nuclear weapons to counterbalance Iran. Israel probably already has them, although they have not come out and said so, but it would be better for another Arab nation to act as the counterbalance, perhaps Saudi Arabia. Third, we should consider making a "shot across the bow" by detonating the smallest nuclear warhead we have in the most uninhabited region of Iran we can find. Efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons are doomed to fail...that horse has already left the barn. What we need to be focusing on is making sure that Iran never uses whatever weapons it is able to develop by making sure that they know that Teheran will be destroyed if they do. Let's not forget that MAD worked very well during the Cold War, and is also working well so far with regards to India and Pakistan. Posted by: mfw13 on August 27, 2006 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINKPaul, ignore all my posts, unless you enjoy wasting your time responding to the idiotic comments of a hopeless dumbshit. Stop stealing my name Stefan, I know it's you! Posted by: GOP on August 27, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINKSince Iran is certainly smart enough to put it facilities underground where they are protected from bombing, there is not military solution either. Small point: the heavy water plant and the uranium enrichment facilities require electricity. The plants that supply this electricity can be bombed. If new electricity plants are built underground, their personnel entryways, air intakes and fuel intakes can be bombed. If nuclear plants are built underground, the entryways, coolant facilities, and the electricity conduits can be bombed. these surface facilities are necessary, thermally hot, and exposed to air attack. they can't be hidden or defended if the US retains air superiority. If they built everything undergound and all lived happily underground with food grown underground, etc., their product would be useless because the point where it is brought above-ground will be thermally hot and can be bombed. In conclusion: (1) maintain air superiority and then (2) Iran is no nuclear threat. Posted by: republicrat on August 27, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINKExcept that they're not vulnerable to earth-penetrating missiles. Posted by: GOP on August 27, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINKAnd we don't have air superiority over Iran, at all. Posted by: GOP on August 27, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINKWe've been in a cold war with NK for at least 5 years, and by some miracle they haven't nuked the peninsula or anywhere else. That is if you believe they actually have a nuke. Iran is likely still several years away, and frankly enriching uranium for weapons production is so immensely difficult and time consuming that I really wonder if any of this has any merit. Cut through the rhetoric and try to understand what is going on here. America took out Iran's main counterbalance in the region when we removed S. Hussein. And our military is bogged down in Iraq, with no hope of leaving until someone else occupies the Whitehouse. We have no resources to fight on yet another front, and Iran knows this. And they also know America is crazy enough to invade Iraq, so maybe they're crazy enough to one day attack Iran. Better get a deterrent and pronto. Is there any doubt why nobody in the mid-east trusts America? Our dismal record in mid-east foreign policy should be convincing enough, let alone our overweighted Israel policies. Posted by: normalnot on August 27, 2006 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINKI see I should have used simpler words for the warmongers. Waaaaah! Those mean old Iranians have filled the power vacuum our stupid invasion of Iraq created, waaaah! Posted by: Gallons Of Poop on August 28, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINKGOP -- I wasn't forgetting the reactor completion time; but it's 4-5 years from operation, even if construction was completed tomorrow (unless Iran could buy the heavy water). The target completion date was originally 2014, then it was reported in a few places as 2009, and most recently the IAEA said the target for the reactor coming online had been pushed back to 2011 (most likely due to delays with heavy water production). If people want to worry about something, worry about Bushehr which, contrary to most people's perception, can produce more plutonium than Arak, can produce it sooner and in greater quantity, and which will be coming online sooner. Yes, Osirak was a single target. However, at that time it was the center of Iraq's nuclear program, and virtually the entirety of the program was based on it; there weren't really any other worthwhile targets, other than maybe bombing the scientists working on the project. Iran is a very different situation, and suggestions that we can bomb our way out of this are fantasy... 25 target areas, 20 of which would require penetrators, 300 discrete targets, and a low level of confidence that we could actually stop Iran from getting nukes. In short, an air campaign isn't going to cut it. So whose boots are you going to use to invade Iran? Posted by: has407 on August 28, 2006 at 3:05 AM | PERMALINKCan Kevin get michael leeden as guest blogger next time? Posted by: klyde on August 28, 2006 at 8:42 AM | PERMALINK免费铃声下载 手机铃声免费下载 mp3铃声 免费手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 三星手机铃声 三星铃声 诺基亚铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 移动铃声下载 nokia铃声 波导手机铃声 手机游戏免费下载 免费手机游戏 手机小游戏 诺基亚手机游戏 三星手机游戏下载 nokia手机游戏 摩托罗拉手机游戏 手机小电影 mp4手机电影下载 手机看电影 免费手机电影 手机视频下载 nec手机铃声 联想手机铃声 摩托罗拉铃声 amr铃声 手机彩铃下载 移动彩铃 免费彩铃 炫铃 移动炫铃 手机酷铃 手机电影 夏新手机铃声 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 联通彩铃下载 联通炫铃下载 特效铃声 midi铃声 和弦铃声 搞笑铃声 原唱铃声 mid铃声 cect手机铃声 和炫和旋铃声 海尔手机铃声 索爱手机铃声 飞利浦手机铃声 康佳手机铃声 真人真唱铃声 mmf铃声下载 lg手机铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 短信铃声 来电铃声 西门子铃声 小灵通铃声下载 tcl手机铃声 手机图片 手机铃音 手机动画 图铃下载 手机游戏 手机炫铃下载 手机彩信 手机铃声图片 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内裤 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫电影 美女波霸 美女淫水 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 Posted by: qq on August 28, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINKThey definitely are vulnerable to earth-penetrating missiles. Posted by: stefan on August 28, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINKhas407, GOP -- I wasn't forgetting the reactor completion time; You weren't? Then what was your "do the math" comment referring to? but it's 4-5 years from operation, even if construction was completed tomorrow (unless Iran could buy the heavy water). The target completion date was originally 2014, then it was reported in a few places as 2009, and most recently the IAEA said the target for the reactor coming online had been pushed back to 2011 (most likely due to delays with heavy water production). The point, once again, is that the opening of the heavy water plant is a major milestone towards the capability to produce nuclear weapons. That is why it is a serious concern. No one is saying Iran could build a nuclear weapon this year or next. It's still several years off at least. But the heavy water plant brings Iran a major step closer to that goal. Yes, Osirak was a single target. However, at that time it was the center of Iraq's nuclear program, and virtually the entirety of the program was based on it; So in other words, that single strike on Osiraq did indeed cripple Iraq's nuclear program. Iran is a very different situation, and suggestions that we can bomb our way out of this are fantasy... 25 target areas, 20 of which would require penetrators, 300 discrete targets, and a low level of confidence that we could actually stop Iran from getting nukes. Huh? First, the idea that destroying "300 discrete targets" is a "fantasy" is utter nonsense. The U.S. military certainly has the capability to destroy 300 targets. And second and more importantly, we wouldn't need to destroy 300 targets to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program anyway. We would only need to destroy key targets on which the program depends. And where do you get your "25 target areas, 20 of which would require penetrators, 300 discrete targets" claim from, anyway? Show me your source. Posted by: GOP on August 28, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINKGOP -- See Khidir Hamza's comments about the effect of the Osiraq strike here (or read his book). For an analysis of a strike on Iran, see Will Iran Be Next?, James Fallows, The Atlantic, December 2004. The numbers I reference come from a presentation that was the result of a war gaming exercise they sponsored as part of the research for the article. A look at a map of facilities shows those numbers are not unreasonable. Posted by: has407 on August 28, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK
July 2009
June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
