Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

For a while I felt as if Obama wouldn't get relected because of the economy. But now I think it would take a miracle from the other side to prevent this, even though things really are not that much better now despite some of the positive messages which have been sent. I understand that this years campaign slogan is going to be "America is back"! This would be a very positive message to send, but for many of us we need more proof before we can really believe it. At least that's the way it is looking from my seat in the bleachers.

I was reading an article yesterday that was quoting many of the presidential hopefuls. All of them were using, to some degree, the theme of bringing America back.

I'm still of the mind, that actions far outweigh campaign slogans. I mean, look at how many of us bought into the HOPE and CHANGE theme.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Don't be so sure. President Barack Obama is moderate and competent enough that he could draw off some usual Republican voters this time. He has revived the Bush I-Clinton foreign and military policy that has proved cautious and effective. As infamous a trimmer as Mitt Romney is on domestic policy is he might have a difficult time convincing voters that he has a steady hand on foreign policy.

"Moderate" Republicans? Tell me about Olympia Snowe.

Should he endorse the reckless foreign policy of Bush II to placate "conservatives" by saying that President Obama doesn't go far enough, then that links him to something already discredited. That's before I even discuss Rick Santorum who has political ties to the largely-disgraced Dubya.



Disaster? Just look at the severely-flawed process within the Republican Party for deciding who the nominee is. Those fellows can't even count the votes effectively in their own primary. Unelected Party bosses like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist have inordinate control of the Republican Party and Republican candidates are responsible to them. The Republican Party has all but adopted "democratic centralism" in practice. "Democratic centralism" is the oxymoron for an official description of the practice that ensured that one sort of political party would have no internal democracy and would tend to extreme positions if the highest leadership within that Party so desired. Initials are J S -- and "Bach" does not follow.

You may rally around the Republican nominee -- but so did partisan Republicans rally around Landon in 1936 and Goldwater in 1964 and partisan Democrats rally around McGovern in 1972 and Mondale in 1984, and often with unusual enthusiasm for their candidate and contempt for the incumbent. That was not enough in either election. Moderates, not partisans, eventually decides who wins.

Undoing the economic, military, and diplomatic disaster that was George W. Bush alone establishes Barack Obama as an above-average President. That is before the Obama campaign officially begins -- and takes the formidable campaign apparatus of 2008 out of mothballs.

Oh, by the way -- the most recent polls suggest that if the election were to be held today, President Obama would have a situation very similar to the 2008 result in the electoral college, with Arizona (reversal of the Favorite Son effect) and the four closest states of 2008 (Missouri, North Carolina, Indiana, and Florida) much in doubt, essentially 50-50 propositions -- suggesting that little has changed in public sentiment since November 2008. Georgia would be closer... but Republicans will have a tough time winning back either Virginia or Ohio (now perhaps 70-30 propositions, about like Georgia on the other side) either of which would clinch re-election for President Obama. Colorado has become a GOP disaster. President Obama has done what it usually takes to get re-elected to this stage -- achieving promises to those who voted for him, avoiding scandals, getting genuine and sustainable growth in the economy, and improving the military situation, and showing a steady hand in foreign policy.

While your scenario could be plausible in November its far from that now. At this point in 2004 George W Bush was in a stronger position and Clinton was even stronger one in 1996, same for Reagan 1984. Obama, as the incumbent, has inherent advantages but the idea that the election is bascially over is sheer fantasy. The acrimonius nature of a primary has obscured the fact that Obama is extremely vulnerable and the polls show it. You are betting that the economy continues to improve from here. That could happen. But gas prices are going to make that less likely, dragging down growth, halting hiring if they continue, which they probably will into the summer.

Anyone who thinks the Republicans can beat Obama is delusional and out of touch with reality. The GOP primaries are scaring the shit out of the majority of Americans who are not crazy.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Maybe the wisest diplomatic course with respect to the Iranian nuke program is to press the Iranian government so much that it has to become a client state of Russia or China to the extent that either Russia or China can dictate what progress an Iranian nuke program is tolerated. In view of the historical unwillingness of China and Russia (to Soviet times) to tolerate a nuclear weapons program in a client state, such could be a win-win proposition for the West.

Preemption has never been a valid excuse for destructive warfare.

Great idea if Iran could be persuaded to do so. My feeling is that this would take pressure from Russia as well.

Originally Posted by Weave

The acrimonius nature of a primary has obscured the fact that Obama is extremely vulnerable and the polls show it.

He would be extremely vulnerable if the opposition party hadn't been hijacked by its extremist wing.

Seriously, any party that is threatening to allow Rick Santorum to be its candidate has lost the mainstream. Obama has seemed to try hard to give this election to the opposition, but the opposition seems even more determined to not let it happen. Of all the candidates the Republicans have had in this campaign cycle, the only remotely reasonable person (IMO) was Huntsman, and he's not going to benefit from a primary system designed to weed out the center.

Originally Posted by Weave

While your scenario could be plausible in November its far from that now.

Could be plausible? Yours requires more contingencies that you cannot assume. An economic collapse is now far less likely than one was at this time four years ago. You saw that right. A military or diplomatic debacle was far more likely for Dubya exactly four years ago than it is now for President Obama. The only speculative booms now are in energy (a collapse in it would hurt people likely to vote R anyway but help a lot of others) and precious metals (likewise).

At this point in 2004 George W Bush was in a stronger position and Clinton was even stronger one in 1996, same for Reagan 1984.

Note that none of them is Barack Obama. Every President is unique. All three won -- right? In any event we have the most effective President in a long time.

Obama, as the incumbent, has inherent advantages but the idea that the election is basically over is sheer fantasy.

Incumbents running for re-election beginning in 1900 have an 8-5 record. This President doesn't have his former mentor returning to run against him (Taft), three years of economic meltdown on his watch (Hoover), a complete lack of experience in running for even statewide campaigns (Ford), or a near-absence of legislative achievements (Carter). That leaves the elder Bush who achieved all that he wanted and couldn't express what he wanted to do in a Second Act as President -- and such hardly applies to President Obama. He has unfinished business and he needs the help of every liberal interest in America to accomplish that.

The acrimonious nature of a primary has obscured the fact that Obama is extremely vulnerable and the polls show it.

Check the discussion on Dave Leip's forum on the Presidential Election of 2012. Your side has far more contingencies to get right. The acrimonious talk within the GOP shows that the GOP has its work cut out in an election year in which it faces the slickest politician since at least Ronald Reagan. At this stage I can see just as easily President Obama winning like Truman in 1948 or Eisenhower in 1956 -- like the last two Nomad/Reactive Presidents (who were above average Presidents, by the way). President Obama fits the model of a mature Nomad/Reactive leader, a cautious leader who doesn't pretend to hold lofty and rigid morals but doesn't stray from the acceptable to any large extent. The gangland hit on Osama bin Laden is definitely not a Boomer way of doing things, but it is somehow right. He may be better at calming things than at resolving the great issues of History during a Crisis Era as one would expect of a 60-something Nomad/Reactive leader in a High, but that may be the best that we could have now. Face it -- he acts more like a 60-year-old Lost than a 50-something Boomer.

You are betting that the economy continues to improve from here. That could happen.

At this stage even slow growth (which is all that anyone can reasonably expect) all but seals the re-election of President Obama. There is no possibility of a speculative boom going bust because there is no such boom whose failure can hurt Obama voters. If the Republican nominee suggests the possibility of the corrupt real estate and lending boom of the Dubya era, then few will believe it a viable promise.

Americans still hold a work ethic, work well when given adequate tools and are treated well, and still believe in material progress and a consumer economy. The economic rules are now far less corrupt than they were when Dubya was President. Such bodes well even if the great corruption of the economic system about ten years ago gutted much of the capital necessary for sustained growth. So we start again at a lower level and with less tolerance for what Robert Ringer calls "LSD deals".

I remain convinced that Americans will vote for a sane, moderate liberal with a record of achievements over a self-proclaimed conservative who is either a nutcase or a fanatic -- or a neophyte at Movement Conservatism. Bush I/Clinton/Obama foreign and military policy is far safer and more acceptable than the madness that the GOP offers.

But gas prices are going to make that less likely, dragging down growth, halting hiring if they continue, which they probably will into the summer.

Such relates to tensions between Iran and the West for which President Obama has no fault. But high, sustained gas prices can themselves promote a boom in alternative energy and in conservation. People might prefer going to Disneyland and the Mall of America to putting up solar panels or windmills, but people who go to work in American factories to make solar panels and windmills will get a better chance to go to Disneyland and Mall of America than they now have. At least we have a freer market now than we did under the crony capitalism of the previous President.

Oh, by the way -- I took the train from San Francisco to Chicago this week. Nice trip -- I saw more than I could have from a jet, I didn't have to dodge maniacs driving other cars as on the freeway, and I didn't have to watch my back as I might on a commercial bus. Trains are the most effective means of saving energy in land travel short of staying home and cursing the place where one is stranded.

Originally Posted by Deb C

... There is absolutely no proof that Iran is building a Nuclear bomb. None....

Respectfully, I don't think people who hang their hat on this fully grasp the process for bomb making.

I think most people see it that some obvious sign or evidence from a NCIS episode is going to pop up and we all collectively say "ah-ah!" It simply isn't like that.

It's taking existing processes already in place and leaving the switch on a little longer; not detectable and can be completed in a shorter time frame than any existing inspection schedule that may make it detectable.

With all that is at stake, why is it that Iran, in Justin's words, is only "cooperating damn near fully with the IAEA..." but NOT FULLY. How big is that difference when the timeframe being discussed is two weeks or less, and why is there a difference at all. Given the stakes, shouldn't the cooperation be 110% of damn fully?

You can make up all the excuses you want for the Iranians - their sovereignty and pride or their need to protect their who-where-and-how's, but again, given the stakes that are the basis of the howls against what your own leaders MIGHT do, one would think that at least some of your disparaging would be aimed at those causing the intrigue, guessing and anxiety - even if in the end they are not making the bomb. To do otherwise, greatly diminishes the credibility of those making the one-sided complaints.


Just to be clear, and perhaps this was missed earlier, I don't believe the Iranians getting/having the bomb justifies our going to war with them. I trust the Iranian leadership to not use the bomb more than I trust the N. Koreans. The N. Koreans haven't used the bomb so ergo....

That is not to say that I'm naive enough to believe the Iranians won't develop the bomb or that is not going to be a big problem for us and the world at large. In the end, we'll manage well enough.

Originally Posted by Weave

He is so radioactive he leads Obama in the Gallup poll 50-46

The most important issue by FAR is the economy

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153029/Ec...ue-Voters.aspx

Keep on deluding yourself....

You keep cherry-picking these polls and refuse to acknowledge what the trend lines of composited polling shows on pollster.com. Just who is deluding themselves?

I'm way okay with the election being a referendum on the economy. I have faith enough in the American people that they won't be stupid enough to hand you guys the car keys again. Going over the economic cliff should be at most a once-in-a-lifetime event for anybody.

Originally Posted by radind

I think that the likely outcomes are 1. Obama backs off; 2. There is a protracted court battle;
3. The Catholic Church gets out of hospital business; 4. The Catholic Church changes its views( in ~ 1000 years).

I have reluctantly concluded that it would be better for the Churches to just get out of secular businesses.

Church could be forced to 'give up' public work, Cardinal George warns
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ne...-george-warns/
..."In his Feb. 26 Catholic New World column, the cardinal said these public ministries may come to an end because of the “much-discussed Department of Health and Human Services regulations now filed and promulgated for implementation beginning Aug. 1 of this year.”
The rules in question, formulated as part of federal health care reform, force many religious institutions to provide employees with contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing drugs, without a co-pay through their health care plans.

Unless the rule is halted, Cardinal George said, institutions may be forced to choose between dropping their religious identity or abandoning their work."...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Fantasy. I understand and see your panic as totally forgiveable considering your abject ignorance of the relevant subjects, but in turn, you should recognize fear-from-ignorance for what it is an at least try very hard not to give in to it.

The difference between 20% pure and 90% pure -- in particular when we are talking not about chemical or even elemental purity, but isotopic purity -- is only conceptually a small and simple thing. And really, not even that. It's like the difference between millimeter-finish and micron-finish. They both can be achieved through "grinding" with a "grinder"... but the thing that can do the one and the tool for the second aren't even close to the same thing.

In any case, the technical questions are really irrelevant to the issue at hand. Simply put, and I repeat from above here: On the one hand, the (admittedly scary) claims made by confirmed, known liars about a subject on which they have been shown to have lied repeatedly and outrageously in the recent past; on the other the clearly-forseeable murder-in-your-name of thousands or more of people who have done no one any harm.

"Gullible" only works for so long as an excuse. Eventually, you have to accept the fact that 'callous' and 'bloodthirsty' are the only descriptors that fit your pattern of choices.

I'm sorry, but you're a guy who once modified trucks in Russia and now does knitting for a living somewhere in Florida; I don't believe that qualifies you as a nuclear scientist. Moreover, even if you were a nuclear scientist, you are not the one that's in the room making the decisions - and I very much doubt the actual nuclear scientist that's in the room has a say in the actual decision but just letting the Supreme Leader know how fast and high he'll jump when told to do so.

From the exact same sources used to make the case that Iran has not yet decided, comes the statements that they have accomplished the most difficult part of the process. While there would be more to do, no one is saying that it is beyond Iran's capability to do so and no one is saying that they have absolute knowledge as to whether they have or will.

You can be as skeptical as you want about the information you and any one else is attuned to regarding the situation; I would not fault you given what has come before. But to use that as a basis for your expressing certainty that you actually know what is going on is, as I suggested to John, something you might want to bring up in your next therapy session with your shrink regarding your god complex.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

He would be extremely vulnerable if the opposition party hadn't been hijacked by its extremist wing.

Seriously, any party that is threatening to allow Rick Santorum to be its candidate has lost the mainstream. Obama has seemed to try hard to give this election to the opposition, but the opposition seems even more determined to not let it happen. Of all the candidates the Republicans have had in this campaign cycle, the only remotely reasonable person (IMO) was Huntsman, and he's not going to benefit from a primary system designed to weed out the center.

Do you view Obama as being much of a centrist? Obama had to talk like a Progressive win the Dem primary. He had to switch during the election and talk more like a Conservative Democrat just enough to win the national election. Did you really think Santorum wasn't going to talk a lot like a Social Conserative during the Republican primary?

Originally Posted by playwrite

... the timeframe being discussed is two weeks or less...

Two weeks is only being discussed by insane people as far as I can tell. A useful-scale gas centrifuge (which Ira_ doesn't have) takes nearly that long just to spool up.

As with economics, you seem to be taking the incomprehensibility-to-you of engineering as a sign that it is genuinely mysterious, except to a few orthodox prophets. It's not conceptually that difficult, really. I could loan you two or three textbooks off my shelf that would easily be enough to help you develop a low-level bullshit detector. If you want titles, I'm happy to suggest them.

(oh, and since you seem to like credentialing, check out the last name of the author of this little bad boy. His son-the-engineer did a fair shitload of the technical work for that... You know, the actual greezy details like the way to make equipment capable of machining heavy isotopes to the level of surface tolerance necessary to achieve full-penetration of a 'gun-type' plug into its target before thermal expansion makes it stick in place or just splash - the things to make atomic weapons, instead of just expensive paperweights or poisonous grenades)

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Do you view Obama as being much of a centrist? Obama had to talk like a Progressive win the Dem primary. He had to switch during the election and talk more like a Conservative Democrat just enough to win the national election. Did you really think Santorum wasn't going to talk a lot like a Social Conserative during the Republican primary?

I think the 2010 election results led to Obama moving to the center much as Clinton triangulated after his party got trounced in 1994. The problem is that I don't think that's a viable option in a 4T like it was for Clinton in the 3T. As for the 2008 election, Obama campaigned to the left of some candidates and to the right of some of the other candidates but he wasn't specifically trying to "out-liberal" everyone else. He sure as hell couldn't have done that to, say, Dennis Kucinich...

And yes, I realize that primaries are designed to play to the base (and disenfranchise moderates, but that's another rant for another time). But what wins primaries isn't necessarily what gives you the independent/moderate/centrist swing vote that can deliver you in November.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Two weeks is only being discussed by insane people as far as I can tell. A useful-scale gas centrifuge (which Ira_ doesn't have) takes nearly that long just to spool up.

As with economics, you seem to be taking the incomprehensibility-to-you of engineering as a sign that it is genuinely mysterious, except to a few orthodox prophets. It's not conceptually that difficult, really. I could loan you two or three textbooks off my shelf that would easily be enough to help you develop a low-level bullshit detector. If you want titles, I'm happy to suggest them.

(oh, and since you seem to like credentialing, check out the last name of the author of this little bad boy. His son-the-engineer did a fair shitload of the technical work for that... You know, the actual greezy details like the way to make equipment capable of machining heavy isotopes to the level of surface tolerance necessary to achieve full-penetration of a 'gun-type' plug into its target before thermal expansion makes it stick in place or just splash - the things to make atomic weapons, instead of just expensive paperweights or poisonous grenades)

All of that still doesn't put you in the room to know a damn thing about what is really going on, now does it?

Okay, back to your knitting.

Its WMVs!!! As in Wild Mysterious Vaginas!!!

Seems old Rush Limbaugh is -

labeling Georgetown University law school student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute,” while urging her to make public video tapes of her intimate acts. Mr. Limbaugh made the comments after Ms. Fluke testified in support of mandatory employer health coverage of contraception in front of a nonofficial congressional committee.

“If we are going to have to pay for this then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke,” Limbaugh said on his radio show earlier this week. “And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we’re getting for our money.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...y-gone-too-far

Rush seems to have missed a biology lesson or two as well suggesting that Ms. Fluke just back off on having so much sex so maybe she wouldn't have to take so many pills. You know ladies, you can skip a pill on any day that you go without; I guess on those other days (with someone like me ) you'll need to take two or three!

I guess old Rush also missed Ms. Fluke's testimony being about her friend with ovarian cancer and the difficulty she was having in getting Georgetown's health apparatus to give her the life saving hormones because she might be just another one of those Wild Mysterious Vagina (WMVs) running around with contraceptives and having sex all over the campus as Rush must surely imagine.

Any of the 70 million women voters (only 55 million male voters by the way) that vote for these scared little nasty men known as GOP should really consider a medical checkup to see if their brains are still working.

Originally Posted by playwrite

All of that still doesn't put you in the room to know a damn thing about what is really going on, now does it?

Okay, back to your knitting.

Playwrite, I don't always agree with Justin, but casting aspersions on his professional life is really low. He also lived in Russia and is in contact with people there, and therefore may (and can IMO) offer an important perspective on aspects of that country's general (if it can be generalized) thinking processes.
Quit the ad homs at people you disagree with or who disagree with you. It utterly undermines your arguments and frankly, makes you sound like a turd even when you have something valuable to contribute.

Edited to add: I am well aware that Justin can defend himself and more ably than I, if he wants to bother to do so. But I fucking hate personal insults like that.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Respectfully, I don't think people who hang their hat on this fully grasp the process for bomb making.

I think most people see it that some obvious sign or evidence from a NCIS episode is going to pop up and we all collectively say "ah-ah!" It simply isn't like that.

It's taking existing processes already in place and leaving the switch on a little longer; not detectable and can be completed in a shorter time frame than any existing inspection schedule that may make it detectable.

With all that is at stake, why is it that Iran, in Justin's words, is only "cooperating damn near fully with the IAEA..." but NOT FULLY. How big is that difference when the timeframe being discussed is two weeks or less, and why is there a difference at all. Given the stakes, shouldn't the cooperation be 110% of damn fully?

You can make up all the excuses you want for the Iranians - their sovereignty and pride or their need to protect their who-where-and-how's, but again, given the stakes that are the basis of the howls against what your own leaders MIGHT do, one would think that at least some of your disparaging would be aimed at those causing the intrigue, guessing and anxiety - even if in the end they are not making the bomb. To do otherwise, greatly diminishes the credibility of those making the one-sided complaints.


Just to be clear, and perhaps this was missed earlier, I don't believe the Iranians getting/having the bomb justifies our going to war with them. I trust the Iranian leadership to not use the bomb more than I trust the N. Koreans. The N. Koreans haven't used the bomb so ergo....

That is not to say that I'm naive enough to believe the Iranians won't develop the bomb or that is not going to be a big problem for us and the world at large. In the end, we'll manage well enough.

It has been hard to choose between North Korea and Iran. This may be another false start, but there is always hope for a positive change.

North Korea’s nuclear weapons: A horse worth the price | The Economist
http://www.economist.com/node/215489...eworththeprice

..."Now comes news of a breakthrough. On February 29th North Korea and America announced that the North would suspend its enrichment of uranium at its plant in Yongbyon and impose a moratorium on tests of weapons and long-range missiles. Crucially, the North has agreed that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency will check that enrichment really has stopped. In return America will ship at least 240,000 tonnes of food aid to feed North Korea’s starving people, organise a few cultural exchanges, and work towards six-nation talks about a comprehensive settlement. Despite North Korea’s record of caprice and outright deceit, this is a good deal for America. It could even turn out to be a great one."...

Originally Posted by Odin

Anyone who thinks the Republicans can beat Obama is delusional and out of touch with reality. The GOP primaries are scaring the shit out of the majority of Americans who are not crazy.

The majority of Americans aren't involved and aren't all that interested in politics right now.

From: In These Times

Concerns about “the imminent threat” of Iran are often attributed to the “international community”—code language for U.S. allies. The people of the world, however, tend to see matters rather differently.

The nonaligned countries, a movement with 120 member nations, has vigorously supported Iran’s right to enrich uranium—an opinion shared by the majority of Americans (as surveyed by WorldPublicOpinion.org) before the massive propaganda onslaught of the past two years.

China and Russia oppose U.S. policy on Iran, as does India, which announced that it would disregard U.S. sanctions and increase trade with Iran. Turkey has followed a similar course.Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace. In the Arab world, Iran is disliked but seen as a threat only by a very small minority. Rather, Israel and the U.S. are regarded as the pre-eminent threat. A majority think that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons: In Egypt on the eve of the Arab Spring, 90 percent held this opinion, according to Brookings Institution/Zogby International polls.[...]

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

The majority of Americans aren't involved and aren't all that interested in politics right now.

So what? Most people have other things to do than be involved in partisan politics. Most of us get bits and pieces... enough to draw conclusions from.

Originally Posted by Deb C

From: In These Times

There are other views on the potential impact of nuclear weapons in Iran

Former Sen. Mitchell: Nuclear Iran Would Ignite Worldwide Arms Race
http://americannewsreport.com/former...e-8813376.html
Should a nuclear Iran come to fruition, will the world see an arms race in the Middle East, particularly with Saudi Arabia?

I think that’s one of the truly great dangers in what is occurring in the Middle East. I think with almost 100 percent certainty, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, there will be an arms race. Egypt, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, you could name a dozen countries. That’s not just the Middle East where it’s true. There are now nine countries with nuclear weapons. There are many, many times more than that that have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, but they refrain from doing so because they rely on the United States, and their belief that it would be destructive to their own stability and security. But if the genie comes out of the bottle in the Middle East, it will almost certain result in arms races in other parts of the world.

The collapse of the non-nuclear proliferation regime that the U.S. has painstakingly worked to build over the past half century would be a very bad thing for us and for people all around the world.

Originally Posted by George Mitchell

The collapse of the non-nuclear proliferation regime that the U.S. has painstakingly worked to build over the past half century would be a very bad thing for us and for people all around the world.

As I've said before, I'm not sure this "non-proliferation regime" was ever sustainable in the long term, and trying to enforce it could turn into a game of whackamole as the ability to make these weapons becomes more and more ordinary among the world's nations.

I think the main motive for a nation to produce these is to deter invasion--they figure once they have a few of these weapons, no nation will dare invade them. So, if a nation has reason to believe they're in someone's crosshairs for invasion, and have the resources to build nuclear weapons, they're more likely to attempt to build one or a few. (Sort of like a person deciding to buy a handgun when there's lots of crime going on in his neighborhood and/or he thinks he could be the next target.)

Solution? Do our part to reduce the level of fear, loathing, and paranoia among nations in the world. Don't go around as if we have some right to invade whatever nation we will, for our supposed "interests". Foster a world order where every nation's sovereignty is respected. Etc. We wouldn't like a more powerful nation imposing "regime change" on us, so let's not cavalierly discuss that as an option for other nations we don't particularly like. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Yes, (even) by our standards Iran's government is crap. I think more and more Iranians themselves are feeling that way, but I think they will be the first to tell you that changing that is their job (however long it takes them), not any other nation's, and another nation forcing the issue through invasion will garner worse hostility from them, because they are as much patriots of their homeland as we are of ours.

The genie is out of the bottle. The question is how and whether we can do things to either increase or decrease the will to invoke her. So far, we have probably been lucky that few nations so far have, that could.

Originally Posted by annla899

Playwrite, I don't always agree with Justin, but casting aspersions on his professional life is really low. He also lived in Russia and is in contact with people there, and therefore may (and can IMO) offer an important perspective on aspects of that country's general (if it can be generalized) thinking processes.
Quit the ad homs at people you disagree with or who disagree with you. It utterly undermines your arguments and frankly, makes you sound like a turd even when you have something valuable to contribute.

Edited to add: I am well aware that Justin can defend himself and more ably than I, if he wants to bother to do so. But I fucking hate personal insults like that.

Sorry, not buying it. You are being ridiculously one-sided and unfair.

If you would bother to look slightly upstream of the thread, you would see -

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Fantasy. I understand and see your panic as totally forgiveable considering your abject ignorance of the relevant subjects, but in turn, you should recognize fear-from-ignorance for what it is an at least try very hard not to give in to it.

Justin is well-aware that calling someone in my profession abjectly ignorant is fighting words. If he is claiming far superior knowledge, he better be able to back it up.

And where exactly would his superior knowledge and my abject ignorance play out in this arena? Three areas -
- nuclear processing
- the highest level of Iranian policy making
- the highest level of US policy making.

Taking the last first. I could have taken the near-obvious-to-all discernment between Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld(later, we learned that Rice/Powell/Tenet were just patsies) and Obama/Clinton/Panetta/Petraeus based on innate intelligence only let alone the orders of magnitude difference in the worshiping of Neo-Con mythology. However, knowing the history of Justin's and Indy's hatred of all-things-govt, what would be the point? If either one of them became President, the other would still be just as distrustful of big evil govt. Better for me to let them chew on their bone and back away slowly from that one. If you bother to take the time to actually read what I wrote, you will see that I said that I could understand their dismay and distrust given what has come before.

Regarding the second possible area of Justin's superior knowledge and my supposed abject ignorance, you really believe that his living in Russia for a period of time provides that? I have not only lived and worked for a few months in the same city as Justin, but have done so in many parts of the world for time periods ranging from months to a couple of years. I make no such claim that gave me any access whatsoever to the inner workings of the high policy makers of ANY of those countries. I seriously doubt that even Justin would take this line of justification for his supposed superior knowledge. Russia, by the way, is probable in the top three nations whose media outlets are thoroughly controlled by the central govt. There was a window there of relatively free-press, somewhat coinciding with Justin's time there, but those outlets are now closed off by Putin and a number of the journalists that had operated there are now dead from a variety of not-so-mysterious ailments and accidents.

That leads us to the third element of Justin's superior knowledge and my abject ignorance of nuclear processing. What I said was that the same source used by John to suggest that Iran has not YET decided to build the bomb also indicated that they had the technology to do so and that it would be a matter of a couple of months if not weeks. Justin's counter to that boiled down to providing a link to an advertisement for a book on how to make the bomb. If I were to Google around to find a book to indicate my superior knowledge, I would at least try to find one that purports to know something about what the Iranians have actually done -- but, maybe that's just me.

Again, I am befuddled by your one-sided reaction to my exchange with Justin. I believe it must have something to do with either (1) some sort of selective poster worshiping or (2) a total disrespect of knitting.

If it is the later, I would just like to note that while I don't believe it gives one superior knowledge of Iran's nuclear capabilities or intentions, I actually have great respect for knitting. I once took it up in 5th grade to attend an after-school knitting club taught by a teacher that I had an enormous crush on. Later in life, my mom use to pull my one accomplishment from that club out of the drawer to show people I was dating. She would do this only with the dates that she approved of so it was a sign to me early-on of those girls I would stop dating immediately and later, the women that I should attempt to continue to do so. Amazing, how my mother became such a better judge of character as I grew older.

I strongly suggest you make an attempt at the needles yourself. Maybe you too could learn to respect the needles.

However, if it is the former (i.e. poster worshiping), I would suggest offering Justin a room for you both. That may be just as enlightening for you as the needles would have been.

Originally Posted by radind

There are other views on the potential impact of nuclear weapons in Iran

As I have said, I do not believe Iran's developing or getting the bomb is justification for us to go to war with Iran. This is not based on some naive notion that Iran doesn't possess the ability or the desire to gain the bomb.

When (not if) they gain the capability, the US needs to make clear that any nuclear attack on our allies in the area would be considered a nuclear attack on US proper with in-kind reaction. I would then offer Iran's top govt policy and military leaders a tour of one of our Trident subs - virtually undetectable and capable in 5-15 minutes time to singularly turn ANY country into sterilized porcelain.

Then we all go back to business as usual.

Just to note - Iran's parliamentary elections are today. You will soon see a significant cooling off of this topic in the media. With Putin's reincarnation as Russia's modern Czar tomorrow, you will also likely soon see oil and eventually gas prices come tumbling down as well.

Originally Posted by playwrite

As I have said, I do not believe Iran's developing or getting the bomb is justification for us to go to war with Iran. This is not based on some naive notion that Iran doesn't possess the ability or the desire to gain the bomb.

When (not if) they gain the capability, the US needs to make clear that any nuclear attack on our allies in the area would be considered a nuclear attack on US proper with in-kind reaction. I would then offer Iran's top govt policy and military leaders a tour of one of our Trident subs - virtually undetectable and capable in 5-15 minutes time to singularly turn ANY country into sterilized porcelain.

Then we all go back to business as usual.

Just to note - Iran's parliamentary elections are today. You will soon see a significant cooling off of this topic in the media. With Putin's reincarnation as Russia's modern Czar tomorrow, you will also likely soon see oil and eventually gas prices come tumbling down as well.

Your strategy worked well with the Soviet Union( The MAD doctrine) , but this approach is dependent on a rational adversary. I have some doubts about the current leaders in Iran. Even one nuclear waepon can cause horrible results.
I hope that you are correct that things will cool off, but for real not just in the media.
Russia seems to be dependent on oil revenues so I don't see Putin's reelection having much effect on the price of oil. The world demand and limited supplies will primarily control the price of oil.
It will at least be interesting to watch the developments.