Advertisement

Archive for Friday, January 13, 2006

Why Iran?

January 13, 2006

Advertisement

To the editor:

Help me understand this. Iran is developing nuclear weapons, according to the White House. America is going to refer them to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions. Am I correct to this point?

So why aren't we referring Pakistan, India, Israel, China, United States, etc. to the Security Council for sanctions? Don't all of these countries have nuclear weapons?

Are we referring them because we don't like Iran or we think Iran doesn't like us? Has Iran ever attacked the U.S.? What is really the point here?

I don't think any country in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world should have nuclear weapons, but I can understand why Iran wants them. Can't you?

David Omar,

Lawrence

Comments

Arminius 8 years, 3 months ago

bozo:

You're post demonstrates why Bush is in the White House while Al Gore has been reduced to an irrelevant demagogue and John Kerry can only express his sour grapes by voting against highly qualified judicial nominees.

The Left (including John Kerry) defended Bill Clinton's veritable draft dodging in 1992 when he ran against a true war hero. Clinton won and that was the end of the draft-dodging issue. Then the Left believed in 2000 that it could make an issue out of Bush's record in during Vietnam. Their friends in the media ran with the story (and ignored Gore's abbreviated tour in Vietnam as a reporter, not to mention Gore's lie about "walking the perimeter"). They came up with nothing--National Guard records proved that Bush met the requirements for service.

Instead of dropping the bogus AWOL story in 2004, the Democrats and their friends in the media ran with it again. Proving that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, CBS News even presented bogus documents provided to them by a discredited partisan. By that time, the media's bias towards Kerry (Newsweek's Evan Thomas estimated that media bias would be worth 15 points for Kerry), and not Bush, became the focus of the race.

Here we are in 2006, and nutcases on the Left continue to mention the bogus AWOL story. That's why the House and Senate will remain in GOP control after November. (And, please, Harry Reid presenting himself as an ethical alternative to the so-called "culture of corruption"? The man represents Las Vegas!)

0

rightthinker 8 years, 3 months ago

You won't get any answers from bozo, because libs don't HAVE any answers; just criticism and angst.

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

Okay, I am a bit curious about this.

Who would you rather was president, since it is obvious that you detest Bush for some odd reason?

How would you rather have seen the president react to 9-11?

I am honestly wondering what your answers are to those two questions, Bozo. I would truly like to know your answers.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

"Hey you liberals, let's just sit back and let this world be taken over by nuts"

With George "God talks to me (but only after I've really abused cocaine and alcohol and gone awol and had daddy's friends set me up in lots of businesses I destroyed and then they bought me the presidency)" Bush as president, what's to wait for?

0

rightthinker 8 years, 3 months ago

Hey you liberals, let's just sit back and let this world be taken over by nuts. Let our kids and their kids worry about it. You liberals are just a joke plain and simple.

0

one_more_bob 8 years, 3 months ago

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- As Israeli government officials departed for Russia on Tuesday to discuss deep concerns about Iran's nuclear facilities, acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the Jewish state cannot allow Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances.

Iran's Islamic fundamentalist government recently broke seals on its nuclear facilities and said it will resume research for civilian nuclear power purposes. International leaders fear Iran will use its nuclear technology to develop weapons.

"Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us [to] have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence," Olmert said at a Tuesday news conference....

0

markoo 8 years, 3 months ago

Getting back to the subject of Iran, I would have to agree with Arminius' points. And keep in mind that I disagree with Arminius about 99% of the time. I don't think the treaties signed by the countries mentioned are in dispute, which negates the original author's assertions.

Iran is a serious problem, and unfortunately needed to be dealt with years ago. I'm all for internationally-backed sanctions, and I don't think we'll have too much trouble attaining those sanctions. It is in everyone's interests to keep Iran's nuclear capability at bay. Considering their current leader believes Israel should effectively be wiped off the map, and that the Holocaust never occurred, I do not believe we want anything to do with such an individual having nuclear capability of any sort, nor do I believe his trust is rightfully earned in that he intends to use such capabilities for energy use only. It simply doesn't mesh with such an attitude and outlook of an individual in power like this one in Iran.

0

Arminius 8 years, 3 months ago

Ember:

"Iraq, after 1986, had no disease research facilities that were operational. Tell me why they needed so many chemical agents to study in non-functional study sites?"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_manal.htm

You're still confusing biological and chemical agents.

I was awake during the 1980s. However, I'm beginning to wonder if you were mixing more than bleach and ammonia during that decade.

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

Iraq, after 1986, had no disease research facilities that were operational. Tell me why they needed so many chemical agents to study in non-functional study sites?

Anthrax, inert or not, can kill, just not as efficiently as active cultures. Reactiving it, to put it in layman's terms, requires very simple chemicals that can be bought anywhere, including Dillion's and Hy-Vee.

Here's a really good example. I proved this my junior year of high school, so I know it works.

Equal parts bleach and ammonia in double that total amount of water. Instant phosgene gas. Bleach and ammonia were both imported by the gallon to Iraq. Separately, they are cleaning agents. Combined, they are an exceptionally lethal, and persistant, nerve agent.

Seem innocuous after that bit of information?

0

75x55 8 years, 3 months ago

Ember - "Need any more examples of how we sold chemical weapons to Iraq...?"

Uh, yeah. Your links are noticeably disappointing in terms of hard evidence of anything other than Iraqi deceit and use of "dual-use" technology - which was acquired not only from the US, but a variety of European and eastern bloc countries. The last link in particular shows some real ignorance of the scope of the CDC and those who study there - study of infectious diseases and supply of inactive samples is not necessarily 'acquiring' chemical weapons, especially in countries of the world where these diseases are naturally occurring. Knowledge of how to sample, test and identify these biological threats is necessary for correct response and treatments. You know, that 'medical' thing.

You say the US "sold chemical weapons" - that is an incorrect statement, and given the political hay you're attempting to make with it, should be more accurately described as a lie.

0

Arminius 8 years, 3 months ago

Ember:

I need to go to Ottawa and so I briefly scanned your links. I haven't seen anything that supports your statement, which was:

"So far, we're past the 30,000 mark in just Kurds when he was testing the chemical weapons we sold him during the Iran/Iraq war."

One of your links is a chronology of events concerning Iraq that has a starting point of 1991. The Iran-Iraq war ended prior to 1991.

Another post concerns a CDC letter about biological agents. Biological agents, of course, have nothing to do with chemical weapons. It is common knowledge that CDC and a Maryland-based firm provided Iraq (and other countries) with biological agents during the 1980s. However, there is no evidence, let alone proof (evidence and proof are not the same thing), that these agents were diverted to weapons production. Also, Iraq certainly had biological agents in its possession at the time of the invasion. If Bush had pointed to those agents as proof that Saddam had biological weapons, you and I both know no one would have accepted Bush's contention. Biological agents simply do not equal biological weapons.

If you have time, please copy and paste specific references from your links that you believe support your contention that we sold Iraq chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. I'll take a look at them later.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

Am I supposed to reply with a quote from some other metal band?

I've listened to my share of heavy metal, but I learned long ago that head-banging mainly just gives you a headache.

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/arison/gws.htm

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1991/h910424g.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/23/210336.shtml

Need any more examples of how we sold chemical weapons to Iraq, Arminius?

Or did I somehow create all of these different webpages just to support my stance?

Bozo.

"To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Don't Tread on Me, Metallica

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

I've obviously thought about it a great deal more comprehensively than you have, Ember. But go ahead, flatter yourself to your heart's content.

0

Arminius 8 years, 3 months ago

Ember:

"Arminus, did you happen to sleep through the 80's?"

No, I was actually in intelligence during the '80s. You made a false statement that is often repeated by the partisan and/or ignorant.

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

Bozo, we've tried time and time again to placate people in power that we don't overly like. All it has gotten us, as a nation, is being spit on repeatedly.

Being nice and kind and all sunshine and flowers is a really nice thought. Very people people want to play that way. If they want to dictate the rules of how we play, then fine. The U.S. will just up the ante, so to speak.

You really don't pay attention to the universe, do you? 1 in maybe 1,000 people on this planet want to live in Happyville. The rest of us accept that it is human nature and try to curb it as best as possible, but also understand that at times, violence is the ultimate and final statement that can be made.

How many times did we, as a nation, bite our collective tongues when the U.N. said we couldn't go after Saddam for breaking a HUGE list of international laws, not to mention directly defy the terms of the cease fire that ended the first Gulf War? About 10 years worth of it. Didn't seem to do a whole lot of good, now did it?

Try thinking once in a while. It might give you a cramp, but please, just give it a shot. If nothing else, humor me.

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

In case you need some proof, read some of the recent (I.E. the last 4 years or so) disclosure documents from the Senate Committee for Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which directly oversees U.S. exports.

They couldn't publish them with impunity if they weren't true. Come on, like any politician is going to let something like that come to light if it wasn't true?

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

Arminus, did you happen to sleep through the 80's? We sold them the base chemicals, details on how to combine them, provided training in using them, and storage containers for them to top it all off.

The pre-made agents were bought from France and Germany, to the best of my knowledge.

You sell a guy a jigsaw puzzle. Not only do you give him a picture of the finished puzzle, but you also give that guy a detailed map of which piece goes where. Did you sell him a completed puzzle? No, but you may as well have.

0

Arminius 8 years, 3 months ago

Ember:

"So far, we're past the 30,000 mark in just Kurds when he was testing the chemical weapons we sold him during the Iran/Iraq war."

We never sold chemical or biological weapons to Iraq.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

Ember-- your post describes very well the reasons Americans are the target of terrorism. Too bad you and so many others embrace them. Not much for the rest of us to do other than "duck and cover."

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

Yeah, 30,000 deaths is nothing to just look at and shrug, but how many are directly the cause of American weapons?

How many have been mistaken for enemy combatants during an exchange of fire?

For an easier question, how many, just estimated not an accurate head count, civilians died under Saddam's rule?

So far, we're past the 30,000 mark in just Kurds when he was testing the chemical weapons we sold him during the Iran/Iraq war. Count in the 2 mass graves we've found, and we're over 40,000 right there.

Flat stated, Saddam needed to be taken from power. It put a lot of other nations in the area on their toes about behaving themselves, and policing their civilians a bit better.

How many nations have stopped saber rattling towards the U.S.? How many are now wondering if they dare speak up against us in the U.N. again, which I might add, is almost a given at every vote taken that involves the U.S. and Middle Eastern nations.

To paraphrase the general sentiment in the Middle East: "Yes, we hate Americans. Yes we want to wipe them off the face of the planet. Oh, yes, we also want American money and business."

Talk about wanting your cake and eating it too.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

The fact is, no one knows how many Iraqis have died during this invasion and occupation of a country that clearly posed little if any threat to the US, or even its neighbors.

The 30,000 or so REPORTED deaths from Iraq Body Count may be all there have been. But in a country that has been plunged into complete chaos, and where reporting anything accurately is very difficult, it seems highly unlikely that the number is ONLY 30,000. In that light, the 50,000-150,000 range doesn't seem that unreasonable an interpretation of the Lancet data, and the 100,000 midpoint would mean that only 1/3 of all deaths have been reported in the media, which is how Iraq Body Count determines its count. A sane person not playing statistical parlour games for political purposes would not find that wholly implausible.

But even if you take the very conservative figure of 30,000 (which even Bush accepts, as I pointed out above) the real evil here is that that is accepted as nothing more than a cost of doing business. In a country with less than 1/10 the population of the US, that is the equivalent of more than 100 9/11's, (not to mention the ongoing civil war, the lack of most basic services or meaningful employment opportunities.)

To think that this can possibly have any positive effect in reducing the threat of terrorism is just plain whacked.

BTW, I didn't keep the comments of the microbiologist on hand. They came up in the search you suggested.

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

Must agree with James on this one. Not a big fan of statistics, since they can be maniulated into saying just about anything you want.

A cross-sectional statistical map of Iraq doesn't take into account the number of people that moved and simply didn't tell their neighbors, or the faulty comminications network there, which would keep families from talking regularly.

Here's a good example of how statistics simply isn't as effective as most people want to believe them to be.

Take a room filled with pure oxygen.

Put a human being in there and let him/her fart once, expelling, say, 1 cubic foot of methane. By the laws of statistics, if that room was 100 cubic feet in volume, that single fart increased the amount of methane 100%. In reality, it only altered the atmosphere of the room by 1/100th.

See how statistics can be used to create alarmist propoganda? People have been using it for years with the anti-smoking crusade. If you want some proof on that, I'll be glad to show you with numbers straight from the horses' mouths. Well, website, but I am sure they were uttered outloud at one point or another.

0

Jamesaust 8 years, 3 months ago

Yes, yes. Seen it, just as we've seen the credible reports of millions dying in the small Colorado town of Beaverton.

Sane people, when presented with a range of possibilities that range from plausible to absurd, normally choose the plausible result, or perhaps reconsider the entire basis of generation.

Not all of us keep on hand the 1.5 year old comments of a self-published microbiologist but if you're trying to out-quiver Arminius by endless citations to (questionable) authority, it might have been more useful to read and contemplate the author's point - this study could be interpreted as supporting even higher estimates (given the right assumptions).

One could, for example, adopt a confidence interval of say 60% and change the results to something like 200-6,000,000 dead. Again, a sane person would find the result absurd and abandon it. In the Lancet article, the authors simply selected (for no good reason other than 'middle=good') the mid-point of their estimate (98,000).

Perhaps a far more useful location for tracking civilian deaths as a result of this flawed and incompetently run war might be: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ I don't vouch for the collection of peaceniks who run it but, unlike Lancet, they at least are trying to do the hard work of actually counting the dead and not playing statistical parlour games for political purposes.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

I did the search you suggested, and came up with this (probably doesn't confirm what you want me to believe)--

http://mikethemadbiologist.blogspot.com/2004/11/lancet-study-of-iraqi-civilian-deaths.html

The Lancet released a study suggesting that ~100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed that otherwise would not have since the occupation of Iraq began. Then someone at Slate who doesn't know much about statistics attempted to debunk the Lancet article. Two problems with said debunking: 1) The estimated number of dead is 100,000 with a confidence interval of (8,000-194,000). The critic fails to realize that while it is possible that the number of dead could be 8,000 (or 194,000), it is highly unlikely. It is most probable that the extra number of deaths is between 50,000-150,000 (give or take). 2) The arguments regarding the 'clumpiness of data' and cluster analysis are specious. Imagine Fallujia has 1000 houses, each with 10 people in them. We blow up ten houses, killing all ten people in each house (totals: 100/10000 dead). Now we pick ten houses (including "former", blown-up houses), and ask how many have died (which is essentially what the Lancet authors did). The odds of not picking a single house with causalities are ~89.5%. To use high-fallutin' language: spatially heterogenous data cause cluster analysis to underestimate a given phenomenon. In other words, the cluster analysis is yielding a conservative estimate.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

"2 people died in the last second so 172,800 will die in one day."

Don't recall seeing that in the study.

0

Jamesaust 8 years, 3 months ago

Google - debunk Lancet Iraq - for your education. But then most people didn't need insight to question thinking along the lines of: 2 people died in the last second so 172,800 will die in one day.

I suppose I've reached some nirvana - as a ping pong ball. The rightwing nuts jobs call me a leftwing pinko liberal and the leftie schizos find me to be a tool of fascist rightwing nationalism. Neither could have reached such a conclusion without missing half - and a volumnious half it is - of my comments. Hmm....

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

The Lancet 2004; 364:1857-1864

DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17441-2

Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey

Les Roberts a , Riyadh Lafta b, Richard Garfield c, Jamal Khudhairi b and Gilbert Burnham a

Summary Background In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 146 months before the invasion with the 178 months after it.

Methods A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 178 months after the invasion with the 146-month period preceding it.

Findings The risk of death was estimated to be 25-fold (95% CI 1642) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 15-fold (1123) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8*1419) than in the period before the war.

Interpretation Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.

Published online October 29,2004 http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf

Affiliations

a Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA b Department of Community Medicine, College of Medicine, Al-Mustansiriya University, Baghdad, Iraq c School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

"How about 100,000 (or 30,000 if you use Bush's number) dead, civilian Iraqis, for starters."

Cite where you get this 100,000 number, will ya? I do my best to try and avoid reading any of the hype surrounding the second Gulf War. It smacks entirely too much of the nonsense that flew around during Vietnam. Many, many newspapers reported blantantly false numbers of dead on all sides.

There is no such thing as an unbiased reporter in this day and age.

"If that holds up another few years, it'll equal the record of success as of 9/10/01."

The failure involved on our part before 9-11 was our underestimation of their resolve to commit this attack. There were vague rumblings about it happening as far back as the Reagan administration.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

I think Kevin just misses his menage a trois with Monica and Bill, and is desperately seeking any sort of replacement.

0

Arminius 8 years, 3 months ago

Monica:

"Same stupidity, same lack of ability to think and reason."

Thank you for that rational post. I know you put a lot of thought into it.

0

observer 8 years, 3 months ago

Jimmy hasn't been, just swallowing Bushco line of crap. Reminds me of our resident a$$hole Kevin. Same stupidity, same lack of ability to think and reason. See Kevin's last attempt was to insult me was by calling me Monica. Can't understand his absolute obsession with hating Clinton. Is he so stupid he can't think for himself? Is he so stupid he can't follow logical arguments? Is he so stupid thaT only reads right wing nut case sites? Unfortunately the answer appears to be yes. In other words a genuine Bush lover. Only requirement to be one is to be be a total mindless idiot. Here Kevin definitely qualifies.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

Your perspective would appear to be US good, everyone else bad, Jamesaust. My view of the world is nowhere near as two-dimensional as that (and it's not as simple as reversing that viewpoint, either) and I didn't need to spend time in a jail cell anywhere to achieve it.

But I'm curious. In which third-world country were you imprisoned?

0

Jamesaust 8 years, 3 months ago

Thought I'd check back in on a quiet Friday .... only to find Sean Penn reads the LJW!!

Yes, I'm waiting for Canada to deploy those nuclear weapons they need for fear of the U.S. Perhaps the Bahamas will be next. Rather than actual evidence, all we find here is a disturbing amount of self-loathing by individuals who seem to perceive the world in two dimensions.

Visit a real repressive country folks! Nothing like a third-world jail cell to inspire a little attitude correction.

0

Arminius 8 years, 3 months ago

b_asinbeer:

It was you who wrote the following above:

"David Omar has a valid point. Why not other countries also? Or am I missing something here?"

Given your ignorance about something as basic as NPT, should you be making judgments concerning what is and is not idiotic.

0

b_asinbeer 8 years, 3 months ago

The only idiotic comments I've seen are from Arminius, not bozo....great job bozo.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

"- With this one, you are just spoiling for a fight, now aren't you? I'll refrain until you make some more outlandishly inane claims like this, though."

How about 100,000 (or 30,000 if you use Bush's number) dead, civilian Iraqis, for starters.

"- The U.S. government is NOT a bunch of violent wack-jobs. They have done what is needed. Seen any news reports about terrist attacks on American soil lately? How about in other nations? Does it take more than one hand to count them all up? Didn't think so."

If that holds up another few years, it'll equal the record of success as of 9/10/01.

"- What social rights to do deny our citizens that are law abiding? Political ones? How about religious ones? Do we deny anyone in this country any rights with impunity?"

The record here isn't perfect, but it is still better than in most other places, and I hope we survive the assault on our civil liberties by this administration. Our record outside the country has long been full of shameful behavior.

0

Ember 8 years, 3 months ago

"1. had a plausible reason to need nuclear energy presently,"

They have the same reason(s) anyone else does.

  • Yeah, good point. It would decrease the need for oil-based power plants and provide relatively clean energy. Can't blame any country for wanting something along the lines of Wolf Creek.

"2. had not lied at every point along the way in its secret development schemes,"

A government that lies-- now there's a novelty

  • No government in the history of human existance has ever revealed everything that they know. They all try to keep an ace up their sleeve, so to speak.

"3. was/is not the preeminent state facilitator of terrorism,"

It'd be nice if all governments gave up terrorism, especially the main practitioner-- ours.

  • With this one, you are just spoiling for a fight, now aren't you? I'll refrain until you make some more outlandishly inane claims like this, though.

"4. had not openly called for the destruction of its neighbors,"

They are violent wack-jobs, but that's pretty much describes lots of governments, especially ours.

  • The U.S. government is NOT a bunch of violent wack-jobs. They have done what is needed. Seen any news reports about terrist attacks on American soil lately? How about in other nations? Does it take more than one hand to count them all up? Didn't think so.

"5. was not a prime abuser of human rights - social, political, religious rights,"

Indeed, but our government can hardly claim a stellar record, especially when we invade another country.

  • What social rights to do deny our citizens that are law abiding? Political ones? How about religious ones? Do we deny anyone in this country any rights with impunity?

Methane is hazardous to your health, dude. Pull your head out before you die in there.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

I'm disappointed, Kevin-- no link to Clinton?

0

Arminius 8 years, 3 months ago

bozo:

We're not half way through the month yet, but your latest is likely to be the most idiotic post offered during January. The introduction of Natan Sharansky's new book dealt with Americans who lacked moral clarity. He was writing about people like you.

0

75x55 8 years, 3 months ago

Speakout - your ignorance of the nature of terrorism over the past forty years is simply stunning. No wonder you can actually say such stupidities as 'Iraq never attacked Israel' - it was by incredible US pressure that Israel did not counterstrike Saddam during the first Gulf War when he was raining SCUDs down on them. Your assessment of Lebanon is so 2-dimensional as to be pointless and silly - I'm more amazed that you don't point out that the evacuation of Marines from Lebanon was one of R.Reagan's biggest mistakes in office. But then again, that would make it hard to defend Clinton's cut-n-run from Somalia.

Gee, solving international conflict isn't as easy as it looks, huh?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

"1. had a plausible reason to need nuclear energy presently,"

They have the same reason(s) anyone else does.

"2. had not lied at every point along the way in its secret development schemes,"

A government that lies-- now there's a novelty

"3. was/is not the preeminent state facilitator of terrorism,"

It'd be nice if all governments gave up terrorism, especially the main practitioner-- ours.

"4. had not openly called for the destruction of its neighbors,"

They are violent wack-jobs, but that's pretty much describes lots of governments, especially ours.

"5. was not a prime abuser of human rights - social, political, religious rights,"

Indeed, but our government can hardly claim a stellar record, especially when we invade another country.

"6. had a legitimate government,"

In whose eyes? I suspect nearly as many Americans question the legitimacy of BushCo as Iranians question their government's legitimacy.

"7. was not deeply distrusted by every neighbor it has, thus ensuring continued nuclear proliferation in the world,"

Our neighbors don't trust us much, no one has more nukes than the US, and BushCo have been saber-rattling towards Iran for years.

"8. had not gained nuclear and delivery technology from rogue agents in contravention of international law."

And BushCo claim immunity from any sort of international law.

Iran is a pretty frightening place, but until US hypocrisy goes away, it probably won't change much.

0

Arminius 8 years, 3 months ago

Speakout:

"America put troops in Lebanon and the Arab world does not want Americans infringing upon them."

Iranians are Persians, not Arabs.

"Israel has attacked every country in the Middle East to gain more land."

Israel gained territory AFTER first being attacked by Arab nations.

I am continually amazed at the ignorance of posters here.

0

Speakout 8 years, 3 months ago

Of the countries listed by the author, Omar, how many of those have attacked others? You can say Iran has by their alleged involvement in the bombings in Lebanon, but they didn't attack mainland America. America put troops in Lebanon and the Arab world does not want Americans infringing upon them. Israel has attacked every country in the Middle East to gain more land. So who should and who shouldn't be punished or sanctioned?

I, as an American, am more leary of Israel and America's use of weapons than I am of Iran. They seem to be a bunch of blowhards anyway. But America did in fact launch a preemptive strike at Iraq who never attacked either Israel or America. Where is the justice in that?

When we look at terrorism, who are the terrorists anyway?

0

Jamesaust 8 years, 3 months ago

Iran, Pakistan, India, Israel, China, United States.

Hmmm.....one of these things is not like the other; one of these things doesn't belong.....

The author is not capable of elementary judgment.

The key word in the NPT is NON. Iran wishes to read the treaty as a right to acquire nuclear technology. The NPT conditions this on peaceful use and NON-proliferation. Iran has not only failed to earn such a right but is perhaps with only the exception of North Korea the nation that has worked hardest to be undeserving of the implicit trust necessary for the development of such a program.

It would be useful if Iran (could avoid even 3 or 4 out of 8): 1. had a plausible reason to need nuclear energy presently, 2. had not lied at every point along the way in its secret development schemes, 3. was/is not the preeminent state facilitator of terrorism, 4. had not openly called for the destruction of its neighbors, 5. was not a prime abuser of human rights - social, political, religious rights, 6. had a legitimate government, 7. was not deeply distrusted by every neighbor it has, thus ensuring continued nuclear proliferation in the world, 8. had not gained nuclear and delivery technology from rogue agents in contravention of international law.

Regarding disarmament, the NPT makes aspirational statements about moving toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. There is no time table. No state is required to reduce or eliminate its weapons nor even to avoid acquiring more.

Iran is another example of how fruitless it is for the United States to take a back seat (even while being openly supportive) and allow other nations, who claim unfair disrespect from the "hyperpower" (a/k/a, the U.S.), to take the lead. As in Bosnia, the forces of evil celebrate these feckless, corrupt mini-powers.

0

b_asinbeer 8 years, 3 months ago

rtwngr--"The muslims hate Israel + Israel is a U.S. ally = The muslims hate the U.S."

Are you claiming all muslims countries hate israel? I highly doubt that. What about the muslims living in the US, do they hate america too? Why do you think they came here from their home countries? Did they come to the US out of pure hatred? No! They came here because there are better opportunities here in America to succeed. Nice try though.

0

Arminius 8 years, 3 months ago

bozo:

"You omit the part in the NPT that requires those possessing nuclear weapons to move towards disarmament...."

That information was not relevant to the topic, which you have attempted to change yet again.

"Now there's an earth-shattering bit of trivia."

I wouldn't consider Syria trivial.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

You omit the part in the NPT that requires those possessing nuclear weapons to move towards disarmament, while BushCo is doing everything it can to restart the nuclear arms race.

"There were more than three countries in the "axis of evil." Iraq, Iran and North Korea were merely three Bush mentioned by name."

Now there's an earth-shattering bit of trivia.

0

Arminius 8 years, 3 months ago

Omar doesn't have a good point. The U.S., China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom are permitted to have nuclear weapons in accordance with the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. The other three nations listed by Omar (i.e., Pakistan, India, Israel) did not sign this treaty. Iran did sign this treaty (as did Iraq and North Korea, both of which had or have nuclear weapons programs in violation of the NPT). Since Iran is a signatory to the NPT, it is obligated to refrain from having a nuclear weapons program. If it violates the treaty, the treaty states that Iran would be subject to sanctions.

As far as Iran attacking the U.S., yes the embassy in Tehran is an example. Another would be the murder of 241 Marines in Beirut. That attack was sponsored by Iran.

bozo:

There were more than three countries in the "axis of evil." Iraq, Iran and North Korea were merely three Bush mentioned by name.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

BTW, N. Korea treats its citizens even worse than Saddam treated his, but they have nuclear weapons. Of the remaining two "axis of evil countries," guess which one isn't being threatened with attack, and also no oil?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

So are you suggesting that the takeover of the US embassy by a bunch of crazed students more than a quarter century ago is justification for a US attack on Iran?

The war in Iraq would not have happened if it weren't for oil, and if the US hadn't been propping up despotic governments in the Middle East for the last half century (to gain access to their oil,) the problem of Israel would likely have been resolved long ago.

0

rtwngr 8 years, 3 months ago

Bozo, the embassy of any country is considered the solemn territory of that country. That in and of itself is an attack on the U.S.

Brian R. - Get off of the oil BS! It isn't true in Iraq and and isn't true in Iran.

The truth about Iran is if they get a nuke the EU and the U.S. is afraid they will aim one at Israel and push the button. That is what the middle east vs. U.S. is all about. It is about our support of Israel as a nation to freely exist in the middle east. Do you people not study history at all?!! This has been the issue ever since the institution of Israel as nation.

The muslims hate Israel + Israel is a U.S. ally = The muslims hate the U.S.

Add it up for yourself.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

In 1979, Iran was a country in turmoil after throwing off a dictatorial regime propped up by the US government. A bunch of religious zealot students taking over the embassy hardly qualifies as an attack on the US.

0

classclown 8 years, 3 months ago

"Has Iran ever attacked the U.S.?"

Yes they have. Back in November 1979.

0

BrianR 8 years, 3 months ago

Iran is another low hanging fruit for BushCo/Haliburton and Iran has oil.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

"The point is, that for now and the foreseeable future, Iran's President and ruling council are batsheet crazy."

Yes, indeed they are. They are crazy enough that they might even pre-emptively attack and invade another country, and we know only BushCo are divinely annoited to do that.

"US=Great Satan meme is nearly on life support with their own people and without some kind of confrontation with the ouside world, the majority of their populace might discover that their leadership is and has been, for more than two decades, their own worst enemy."

Of course, the meme that we should all be afraid, very afraid of communism has now been taken over by the meme that we should all be afraid, very afraid of terrorism-- to the extent that we sh*tcan the constitution.

0

BOE 8 years, 3 months ago

It's not just the U.S., it's also Europe and the majority of the Middle East, as well.

Everyone understands why Iran or any other country would want nukes, but the fact that other countries have them is beside the point/irrelevant.

The point is, that for now and the foreseeable future, Iran's President and ruling council are batsheet crazy.

If their guardian council hadn't disqualified the dozens of moderate candidates in their last election, Iran, with all of its extra oil $'s, would be doing the million and one other things that would dramatically improve the lives of their citizens, instead of provoking their neighbors and the rest of the outside world as a means to retain power.

After a quarter of a century, their US=Great Satan meme is nearly on life support with their own people and without some kind of confrontation with the ouside world, the majority of their populace might discover that their leadership is and has been, for more than two decades, their own worst enemy .

0

b_asinbeer 8 years, 3 months ago

David Omar has a valid point. Why not other countries also? Or am I missing something here?

0

ryanjasondesch 8 years, 3 months ago

They don't want 'em anymore cuz we said NO!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.