of nukes and knowledge

[caspian_x]

By now, everyone knows about the 2003 NIE that said Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program.

And if you watch the news or walk the blogosphere a bit, it's clear everyone is convinced that this is the correct intelligence and that the Bush Administration simply is looking for excuses to go to war with Iran.

Everyone, that is, except the British

Comments

The ever-quotable Ron Paul

[resk]

What do you make of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and current U.S. posturing toward Iran?

He's a loudmouth, and he hurts their cause. But we help his cause when we gang up against him. When we pass sanctions against him, the dissidents in Iran who would like to get rid of him rally around him for nationalistic reasons.

We get hysterical over a guy who doesn't have a single weapon, and nobody's proven that he's ever violated the arms-nonproliferation treaty. Matter of fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency is going to have an agreement with him by the end of the year. That's why you have all of this warmongering going on: It is to try to find an excuse to start bombing him before they prove that he doesn't have a chance of having a weapon. That's exactly what we did with Iraq. I'm scared to death they're getting ready to do that with Iran.

The Bush administration says Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgency. How much can we trust that assessment?

About as much as what we heard about Iraq before the war. What was true about that? Very, very little, if anything. They're capable of telling us anything if they want to go to war. And that's what they want.

Whether the Iranians have helped the insurgency or not is almost irrelevant from my viewpoint. Why wouldn't they have an interest? It's like saying that if the Russians were in Mexico, we wouldn't have an interest in who wins that war. We'd have every right. They're the next-door neighbor.

Re: The ever-quotable Ron Paul

[caspian_x]

Ever-quotable and ever-laughable.

Regarding point one, sorry, I disagree that appeasement is a better course of action. And what is exactly is this "agreement" going to say? That Iran can refine nuclear material as long as they pinky-swear to only use it for energy and not weapons? Right. Great.

Regarding point two, the analogy is flawed as ususal. Of course you have an interest as to how your next-door neighbor is doing. But the claim is that Iran is supporting insurgents, who are actively trying to bring instability to Iraq. We'd have an interest in protecting Mexico if Russia was invading and trying to take over. That's not what we're doing in Iraq. We're trying to stabilize the country so they can govern themselves. The elections held over there have proven that.

Re: The ever-quotable Ron Paul

[k_sui]

That Iran can refine nuclear material as long as they pinky-swear to only use it for energy and not weapons? Right. Great.

If they choose not enter into an agreement, then they have that right. If they choose to develop nuclear weapons, then they have that right as well. Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me that we think we have a right to tell other sovereign nations what they can and cannot do.

Re: The ever-quotable Ron Paul

[caspian_x]

Well of course they *can* develop nukes regardless of what we say because we're a sovereign nation. But then, since that's a threat to our national security (mainly because their leader is a nutjob), we have the right to react how we see fit.

Re: The ever-quotable Ron Paul

[k_sui]

I will be honest in saying that I haven't read the NIE, but how in the world is Iran potentially developing nukes a threat to our national security? I'm not trying to be a dick, but is this a "They might give a weapon to a Shiite fundamentalist who might try to sneak into our country"-thing? I'll buy that if it is, but could we agree that's a more distinct and immediate threat with a bunch of other countries includiing ones like Pakistan where they actually share a common religion (and not 1300 years of hatred and bloodshed) with the 9/11 nutjobs and their ilk?

Re: The ever-quotable Ron Paul

[ubersaurus]

Somehow I question that notion that Iran has ICBMs.

Re: The ever-quotable Ron Paul

[ikkarus01]

In that case, we should nuke the White House. Because our leader is a dangerous nutjob who does, in fact, already have nuclear capabilities and is, hands down, the biggest threat to our national security we have ever faced.

Nukin' the White House

[resk]

IAWTC.

Depleted Uranium: Look It Up

[resk]

Our leader, on the other hand? Completely "sane."

We continue to proliferate nuclear arms. We use Depleted Uranium in our tank shells, cuz it's the only thing that can puncture tank armor.

Depleted Uranium, while not nearly as harmful as Enriched Uranium, still sprays enough poisonous dust into the air to cause Our Own Veterans (not to mention all of the Iraqis) to suffer long-term physiological and neurological health problems.

We used Depleted Uranium in the Gulf War, too. It's been linked to what they call "Gulf War Syndrome." Amazing that there's not more information out there about it, since it is directly harming our soldiers.

Re: Depleted Uranium: Look It Up

[caspian_x]

Of course, there is much disagreement as to whether "Gulf War Syndrome" actually exists. Many doctors disagree that there even is such a thing.

Re: Depleted Uranium: Look It Up

[resk]

Go ahead and look up Depleted Uranium.

You will not like what you find.

Re: Depleted Uranium: Look It Up

[caspian_x]

You're probably right, I won't. How is relevant to whether or not Iran developing and possessing nukes is a threat to national security again? Because if we use depleted uranium, then Iran going nuclear isn't a threat? I don't really buy that logic.

If you're going to argue that we should stop using depleted uranium, that's fine, but to me that sounds like a separate fight with a different point than saying Iran has a right to possess nuclear arms.

Re: Depleted Uranium: Look It Up

[resk]

I was pointing out the continuing double standard of our government. It's okay for US, but not for THEM.

Meanwhile, we subject our soldiers to unneccessary violence in a place we never needed to be. We keep cutting back veterans' benefits. We explain away our veterans' health problems by saying that we don't have enough information.

We do whatever suits us.

Re: Depleted Uranium: Look It Up

[caspian_x]

Frankly, I never gave much credence to the very Ron Paul-esque argument of "we have bases in other countries, but wouldn't tolerate other countries' having bases here," and your argument falls in that whole category.

It's okay for US, but not for THEM.

Yup, pretty much.

Re: Depleted Uranium: Look It Up

[resk]

Terrific.

You just keep right on that path, Casp. Don't look up Depleted Uranium. Don't look up anything that might provide information to change your view from one of blind faith to one of reasoning.

Congratulations. You are indeed a true American.

Re: Depleted Uranium: Look It Up

[caspian_x]

I will put looking up depleted uranium in the hopper of things to look up when I have time but honestly, I've heard arguments like it before. Frankly, whatever you or I hear about military decisions and what we make of them all amount to a big pile of nothing. You said it yourself, we use it because it's the only way to pierce certain armor. So what's more important? Being able to complete a mission or possible long-term effects of depleted uranium. Are you qualified to perform the mission calculus required to make that decision. I'm not. It's easy to sit here and criticize military policy but at the end of the day none of us know what the hell we're talking about.

So forgive me if I don't equate a military decision of what kind of weaponry to use exactly equates to allowing a Holocaust-denying nutjob who has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map to have nuclear weapons.