Page 1 of 3
A Summary on the Iran Situation.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:53 pm
by Nuklear
I enjoyed this simple explanation and thought of sharing it.
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/a ... 18485.html
The strange case of the nuclear cartel
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff at January 10, 2008 12:54 PM
Pakistan is in the nuclear cartel, even though it may fall into hostile hands at any time. But, according to Bush, Iran may not even approach the outer circle of nuclear knowledge that might eventually place it in the select group of nuclear powers.
Bush said: "Iran was a threat, Iran is a threat and Iran will continue to be a threat if they are allowed to learn how to enrich uranium."
(1) Iran already knows how to enrich uranium. It's almost common knowledge how to enrich uranium.
(2) Who is it that "allows" whom to learn what to do and not to do? Bush and/or the nuclear cartel and/or certain nations are apparently the keepers of the nuclear secrets and the enforcers. From whence came this authority? What determines who is a member of the cartel and who is not? Why Pakistan and not Iran?
(3) Was and is Iran a threat? To whom? I am more afraid that Bush is a threat to Iran, simply because the U.S. is stronger than Iran, because Bush has already attacked Iraq, and because the U.S. has declared that it has interests (oil and Israel) in that region of the world. I am far less afraid that Iran is a threat to the U.S. It has no known designs on this continent and no known or declared interests here. It does not have a military that could attack the U.S. It does not have nuclear weapons.
(4) The leaders of the world's states, the U.S. and Iran included, often cast diplomacy aside and engage in provocative actions and words. The sailing of warships near the shores of other nations, the maneuvers of speed boats, and Bush's rhetoric are all examples. A pox on all their houses. This is all part of their jockeying for power. Does any of it enhance the general welfare of their respective publics, the American people and the Iranian people? Very unlikely.
We live in a Dark Age in which we take such stupid and dangerous behavior of those in power as the norm. Many of us stupidly applaud the provocations and wish that they would end in real blood and gore. Why do we put up with such thinking? Why do we give our leaders the power to set off needless wars, to kill others and get many of us killed? Were the cave men this barbaric? Were the barbarians even this barbaric?
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:00 pm
by XemnasXD
1/5 of americans don't know where america is. The population is stupid and thus easy to control and be lead, like sheep, into whatever conflict our "Leaders" decide to take interest in....the US is easily the Most Dangerous country in the world....
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:26 pm
by Jstar1
we're gonna make up something then make it look like iran do it, then invade iran
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:28 pm
by avanti42
XemnasXD wrote:1/5 of americans don't know where america is. The population is stupid and thus easy to control and be lead, like sheep, into whatever conflict our "Leaders" decide to take interest in....the US is easily the Most Dangerous country in the world....
i have no idea where you got that fact, the only place i have seen
stupidity like that is on those TV shows where they ask people questions like
that and only play it if they get it wrong.
idk where you live and what kind of people you talk to but i have met maybe
3 people in my life who are that stupid and they are mentally defficient.
please dont post some lame ass polling site as your source
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:30 pm
by Reise
Ron Paul, OTL.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:36 pm
by non ego man
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:38 pm
by XemnasXD
your right i was wrong....11% of americans can't find american...or course this was just random isolated testing and the real number is probably much large...the american people haven't exactly tried to prove the statistic wrong b4, our public school education is a joke...
source
but i love your idea that stupid americans only exist on TV....thats probably what the people on TV think....
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:42 pm
by Reise
XemnasXD wrote:our public school education is a joke...
Exactly. We're so focused on other areas of study I can hardly remember having any geography in school. The only place I got seriously tested on things like that was when I took East Asian Studies at the end of my senior year in HS. And we never went farther west than India. Our schools could stand to have a whole class dedicated to geography if you ask me. And it should be required for graduation.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:52 pm
by XemnasXD
Even though i think the SATs are scam i think they should add a mandatory Science section and +1 to everything Reise said...the last time i was taught Geography was in 6th grade by a teacher so scary he literally picked up a student and threw him into a wall for coming into class with an attitude....needless to say i learned the name of every country in the world and there capitols and im pretty sure thats the only reason why i can find cambodia if someone every asked me....
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:01 pm
by Crumpets
XemnasXD wrote:your right i was wrong....11% of americans can't find american...or course this was just random isolated testing and the real number is probably much large...the american people haven't exactly tried to prove the statistic wrong b4, our public school education is a joke...
sourcebut i love your idea that stupid americans only exist on TV....thats probably what the people on TV think....
And many, many more fail in grammar.
On-topic. I basically agree with Jstar1. According too some of the well known sites, security is increasing around airports again. Possibly a sign of precaution.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:10 pm
by Nuklear
XemnasXD wrote:public school education is a joke...
Fixed.
Re: A Summary on the Iran Situation.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:12 pm
by JacksColon
Nuklear wrote:
(2) Who is it that "allows" whom to learn what to do and not to do? Bush and/or the nuclear cartel and/or certain nations are apparently the keepers of the nuclear secrets and the enforcers. From whence came this authority? What determines who is a member of the cartel and who is not? Why Pakistan and not Iran?
The derminent to whether or not a state is part of the nuclear "cartel" as you call it is ownership of nuclear weapons, plain and simple. India, Pakistan, France, Russia, the U.S. and China all have nukes. They got nukes and once they had nukes, there was no way they'd give them up. The idea is to hault the early stages where enrichment is being researched. Before uranium becomes weaponized. Once you weaponize uranium, people aren't going to **** with you. N. Korea and Iran know this. South Africa was a pushover and we strongarmed them into giving up their nuclear ambitions. The problem with Pakistan, more so than Iran but it's tru to some degree there, is that the government is in a precarious position. The nuclear scientists in Pakistan have willingly supplied nuclear technology and research to other regimes (N. Korea). Al Qaeda has expressed a desire to possess nukes and with their strong presence in Pakistan, that is the most disconcerting thing about all of this. And now that Musharref is becoming less capable of controlling the terrorists and violence within his borders, one must wonder if the government will one day fall and the nukes will become the property of people like bin Laden
Re: A Summary on the Iran Situation.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:20 pm
by Nuklear
JacksColon wrote:The idea is to hault the early stages where enrichment is being researched. Before uranium becomes weaponized.
Which makes sense because the nations enforcing this "mandate" already have them. No sarcasm there. Point being people in power need to know their limits/borders and not cross them. When people apoint/elect a position for someone it's only for that spot, not for other nations. I'm not attacking you just this insane, and I mean that, notion that someone gets to tell someone else what to do who's not in their jurisdiction.
Re: A Summary on the Iran Situation.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:23 pm
by non ego man
Nuklear wrote:I'm not attacking you just this insane, and I mean that, notion that someone gets to tell someone else what to do who's not in their jurisdiction.
So we should be ultra-protectionist...not get involved in Sudan...it was a mistake to get involved in the Balkans...shouldn't have entered WW2, etc?
Re: A Summary on the Iran Situation.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:32 pm
by JacksColon
Nuklear wrote:JacksColon wrote:The idea is to hault the early stages where enrichment is being researched. Before uranium becomes weaponized.
Which makes sense because the nations enforcing this "mandate" already have them. No sarcasm there. Point being people in power need to know their limits/borders and not cross them. When people apoint/elect a position for someone it's only for that spot, not for other nations. I'm not attacking you just this insane, and I mean that, notion that someone gets to tell someone else what to do who's not in their jurisdiction.
I understand your point, sort of. The powerful states tell the less powerful what to do, etc. And, being a Marxist, I agree that usually it's crap.
However, I don't want nuclear weapons, period. I don't want the U.S. to have them (not gonna happen). I don't want Pakistan or Iran to have them. I think it's necessary for them to NOT have them and the nations of the world generally agree because that's why it's such a big deal, for the reason I've said. Basically, nuclear weapons can pose a direct threat to another country, but also can cause regional instability. If Pakistan and India decide to have at it again over Kashmir (which is very possible) one day in the future and they start lobbing nukes at another, the fallout (no pun intended) isn't just within those countries. You'd see mass migrations of refugees into neighboring countries which would cause strains in many ways; economic, humanitarian, security (lots of people don't like one another). Civil wars could break out, ethnic violence etc.
And a country like Iran, altho less likely IMO, poses a similar threat, althouh more likely to Israel. IMHO, Israel would preemptively strike Iran well before Iran could be capable of deploying a nuke. And that also is a terrible idea.
The use of nukes by the powerful states as a deterrent is the ultimate sanction on states like Iran, pakistan, etc. The ol' MAD (mutally assured destruction) idea. If worse comes to worse, states like the US and Israel would launch a nuke to prevent a nuclear strike. Ironic isn't i?
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:55 pm
by Barotix
Nuklear wrote:XemnasXD wrote:public school education is a joke...
Fixed.
+1
non ego man wrote:Nuklear wrote:I'm not attacking you just this insane, and I mean that, notion that someone gets to tell someone else what to do who's not in their jurisdiction.
So we should be ultra-protectionist...not get involved in Sudan...it was a mistake to get involved in the Balkans...shouldn't have entered WW2, etc?
what is the
Monroe doctrine? <~~ wiki loving google. ~~> i should probably contribute more to this discussion, but Jack is like an older version of myself [except he is white] so I'll just read.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:02 pm
by ShizKnight
Reise wrote:XemnasXD wrote:our public school education is a joke...
Exactly. We're so focused on other areas of study I can hardly remember having any geography in school. The only place I got seriously tested on things like that was when I took East Asian Studies at the end of my senior year in HS. And we never went farther west than India. Our schools could stand to have a whole class dedicated to geography if you ask me. And it should be required for graduation.
I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:03 pm
by non ego man
So you agree that America should absolutely, unequivocally
not get involved in the affairs of other sovereign nations? Or only under certain circumstances that you happen to agree with (such as the prevention of genocide)? Or is it just that every post-Korean military action of the US was unjustified but that there were many times (eg China's invasion of Tibet) that they should have acted but didn't?
ShizKnight wrote:I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE.
Yeah, kudos. Well played, Reise.
Re: A Summary on the Iran Situation.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:10 am
by Nuklear
non ego man wrote:Nuklear wrote:I'm not attacking you just this insane, and I mean that, notion that someone gets to tell someone else what to do who's not in their jurisdiction.
So we should be ultra-protectionist...not get involved in Sudan...it was a mistake to get involved in the Balkans...shouldn't have entered WW2, etc?
I'm a libertarian. If you look at the Constitution, or the ideals the founders set this country up on, you can reasonably say that liberty is an integral part, or at least a big part of the backbone, of our country.
As long as our sovereignty isn't attacked, or force brought against us, we should not do the same. The golden rule applied to foreign policy. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
I'm not a historian but you could take that as besides WWII and maybe Afghanistan we shouldn't have gone to war with anyone else.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:19 am
by Reise
non ego man wrote:ShizKnight wrote:I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE.
Yeah, kudos. Well played, Reise.
Not quite sure what I did there, but right on.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:22 am
by Jstar1
we have a powerful country, but things are beginning to change. After WWII, our country was the shiznit since all of europe and asia was a pile of junk, but since countries are getting stronger, its harder for americans to realize that we can't just go into some country and make them do what we want. Vietnam and iraq is just one of them, and going to somalia too. supersixone hmm anyone?
plus, all this middle east stuff is just cause of the fact that we support israel and since arabs hate jews, arabs end up hating us. We need to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries when we don't have too. For iraqi shi'ites and sunnis who are too stupid to get along with each other, why should the US care? let them kill each other. Why should we stop them? we don't get any gain except for ruining our good reputation and loss of soldiers and money. America doesn't have to police countries unless they are a threat to the world.
as for public schooling, its messed up. We spend so much shit on mental people (not saying thats a bad thing), but we're not encouraging or raising any new smart guys. I read somewhere that only like 5% of the money spent into education is spent for smart people, and the rest for mental people.
Our country needs stronger and smarter leaders (hmm bush anyone?). We need to raise smart kids so they can lead the country.
as for nuclear capabilities, I DOUBT iran or israel or pakistan would throw a nuclear bomb at another country because you have to be a moron to not know that a nuclear war is going to screw yourself too. I doubt a nuclear war would ever happen except in the most radical and extreme cases because countries aren't dumb enough to realize that if nuclear bombs are used, they just bought their ticket to mutual destruction.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:28 am
by Nuklear
Jstar1 wrote:America doesn't have to police countries unless they are a threat to the world.
America doesn't have to police countries at all.
Fixed.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:30 am
by Jstar1
Nuklear wrote:Jstar1 wrote:America doesn't have to police countries unless they are a threat to the world.
America doesn't have to police countries at all.
Fixed.
NO we do need to police countries if they are a threat.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:35 am
by Nuklear
Jstar1 wrote:NO we do need to police countries if they are a threat.
If that's not sarcasm, no we don't. It's called peace, negotiations, etc.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:35 am
by Jstar1
Nuklear wrote:Jstar1 wrote:NO we do need to police countries if they are a threat.
If that's not sarcasm, no we don't. It's called peace, negotiations, etc.
I dont think negotiations work with north korea
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:42 am
by Nuklear
Jstar1 wrote:Nuklear wrote:Jstar1 wrote:NO we do need to police countries if they are a threat.
If that's not sarcasm, no we don't. It's called peace, negotiations, etc.
I dont think negotiations work with north korea
No? I'm pretty sure they suspended their program, and even if they didn't so the **** what? Lots of countries have "weapons." Plus, I'm pretty sure they haven't threatened anyone either.
Back to the police thing though. If something isn't going our way it's hypocritical for us to be the first instigator.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:20 am
by XemnasXD
Jstar1 wrote:Nuklear wrote:Jstar1 wrote:America doesn't have to police countries unless they are a threat to the world.
America doesn't have to police countries at all.
Fixed.
NO we do need to police countries if they are a threat.
Whats gives Us the right to tell other countries how should should operate. The US is a major threat to world peace having one of the largest most expensive militaries in the world and an extremely short temper. Or have you forgotten so quickly our RUSH to Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction that don't exist.
People like you are why the US is such a dangerous place. An ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous populous built on the ideals of a democracy housing enough firepower and nuclear arms to probably make most of Europe uninhabitable for at least 2000 years.
America is not the Savior.
America does not know whats best for everyone.
America does not have the right to pass judgement.
If people around the world don't like the way their gov't is run then eventually they'll stand up, thats why they have legs of their own. Its happened in India its happened in Cuba its happened in Africa its happened All over the world in fact our nation was built on such an uprising.
The invisible hand will guide all tyrannical gov't to there knees. The US wants to play God and trying to shape the world themselves.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:24 pm
by non ego man
XemnasXD wrote:Whats gives Us the right to tell other countries how should should operate.
Nuklear wrote:America doesn't have to police countries at all.
There are many that believe America should act to protect certain human rights around the globe. Female genital mutilation, for example, was a hot topic a few years back and many wanted the US to influence the countries allowing this practice to get it banned. At the very least, offer asylum to the potential victims.
We were belatedly involved in the protection of Muslims in the Balkans after the UN proved incapable of doing so. That civil war was resolved rather quickly after American military intervention.
Today, many are calling for the US to stop the genocide in Sudan. Even those who are against the Iraq and Afghanistan actions.
And lets take America out of the equation. Your position is that the world's hegemon should not, under any circumstances, involve itself in the domestic affairs of another country. Those in power, even dictatorial tyrants, should have free reign over their citizens. Slavery, genocide, etc. Unless a country directly attacks the hegemon, it should do nothing.
This just strikes me as a supremely naive idea. Full of idealism, sure, but fantastically short-sighted.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:32 pm
by JacksColon
non ego man wrote:XemnasXD wrote:Whats gives Us the right to tell other countries how should should operate.
Nuklear wrote:America doesn't have to police countries at all.
There are many that believe America should act to protect certain human rights around the globe. Female genital mutilation, for example, was a hot topic a few years back and many wanted the US to influence the countries allowing this practice to get it banned. At the very least, offer asylum to the potential victims.
We were belatedly involved in the protection of Muslims in the Balkans after the UN proved incapable of doing so. That civil war was resolved rather quickly after American military intervention.
Today, many are calling for the US to stop the genocide in Sudan. Even those who are against the Iraq and Afghanistan actions.
And lets take America out of the equation. Your position is that the world's hegemon should not, under any circumstances, involve itself in the domestic affairs of another country. Those in power, even dictatorial tyrants, should have free reign over their citizens. Slavery, genocide, etc. Unless a country directly attacks the hegemon, it should do nothing.
This just strikes me as a supremely naive idea. Full of idealism, sure, but fantastically short-sighted.
+1
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:32 pm
by JacksColon
Barotix wrote:Nuklear wrote:XemnasXD wrote:public school education is a joke...
Fixed.
+1
non ego man wrote:Nuklear wrote:I'm not attacking you just this insane, and I mean that, notion that someone gets to tell someone else what to do who's not in their jurisdiction.
So we should be ultra-protectionist...not get involved in Sudan...it was a mistake to get involved in the Balkans...shouldn't have entered WW2, etc?
what is the
Monroe doctrine? <~~ wiki loving google. ~~> i should probably contribute more to this discussion, but Jack is like an older version of myself [except he is white] so I'll just read.
I'm the whitest of the white. Not sure if that's a good thing tho lol
