# Scientists speak out on nuclear bunker busters



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

from the Union of Concerned Scientists (nee M.I.T.)


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think they can find open voids in the earth using a gravity survey from the air.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

That only solves one of the many, many problems that video presents, though.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

"nuclear weapon" is the same as "cigarette"
both are unhealthy to humans regardless of dosage


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Who knows what capability the US has with strategic nukes. They have continued their development since the end of the cold war and much of the research has been done on supercomputers. Maybe the fallout is minimal or negligible.

Let's not kid ourselves, It is obvious what Iran's intentions are. If they don't want to get nuked, they are free to stop their weapons program.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Who knows what capability the US has with strategic nukes. They have continued their development since the end of the cold war and much of the research has been done on supercomputers. Maybe the fallout is minimal or negligible.
> 
> Let's not kid ourselves, It is obvious what Iran's intentions are. If they don't want to get nuked, they are free to stop their weapons program.


you don't see the hypocricy in the U.S. (the only country in the history of the world - so far - to use nuclear weapons against people) lecturing other countries on their obtaining nuclear weapons?
and then to top it all off, the U.S. hints at using nuclear weapons against said country

do you get this stuff directly from a source in Langley, VA?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you don't see the hypocricy in the U.S. (the only country in the history of the world - so far - to use nuclear weapons against people) lecturing other countries on their obtaining nuclear weapons?
> and then to top it all off, the U.S. hints at using nuclear weapons against said country
> 
> do you get this stuff directly from a source in Langley, VA?


It's a well known fact that the US has continued nuke development.

No, it's not hypocritical... different time, different enemy. The risk here is that terrorist or extremist elements obtain a nuclear device. The US has control of their nukes and has a stable government. The same cannot be said for Iran.

The easy way out here is for Iran to stop nuclear development.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

hmmm, let'see "stable gov't"
you mean one that invaded a country under the pretext of preventing them from using their stockpile of WMD and then found ZERO?
you mean then claiming said country was responsible for the attack on 9/11 and then the U.S. Congress reports there was/is no link?

that type of stable gov't?

the U.S. has made the world less safe with its Orwellian perpetual war(s)
the war is not meant to be won or lost - it is meant to be continuous

the Langley, VA comment was aimed at your overtly pro nuke stance
do you get cheques (or 'checks') that come from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, but the envelope is postmarked; "Langely, VA"?


----------



## Ighareeb (Aug 10, 2005)

Thank goodness there are people like you macspectrum who arent fooled by the illusions in the media....fully support you on this one


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> It's a well known fact that the US has continued nuke development.
> 
> No, it's not hypocritical... different time, different enemy. The risk here is that terrorist or extremist elements obtain a nuclear device. The US has control of their nukes and has a stable government. The same cannot be said for Iran.
> 
> The easy way out here is for Iran to stop nuclear development.


Actually one could argue that Iran has a much more stable government than that of Pakistan where there is an active insurgency underway. I use the word insurgency correctly in the case of Pakistan unlike the improper use of it which comes up all the times when discussing Iraq. There have been numerous coup attempts and assassination attempts on Musharraf. 

In addition one could argue that nuclear weapons from former soviet republics are more likely to fall into the hands of undesirables than from Iran. If you think about the amount effort it would take a relatively small small country like Iran to produce such a weapon they aren't going to be passing them out in the hall like a pack of smokes.

At issue here is that you have a sovereign nation that feels threatened from external forces that have avast superior military capability. Why is it that so many people here fail to see that what we are observing is nothing more than a nation developing the capability to deter (if you believe in nuclear deterrence) other nations from attacking it.

What I find interesting as of late is how the "spin" is dealing with democracy in the middle east. As we recall the issue with Iraq went from WMD to Democratization. Since the overtly stated goal is to bring democracy (which I do not believe is the intent... stability yes, democracy no) what happens when the newly formed Iraqi government starts taking a line which is contrary to Western interests? Palestinians have a democratic system and elected a terrorist group, Iran has a democratic system... so I guess the West can go back and use the WMD argument to justify action against Iran.


----------



## markceltic (Jun 4, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> so I guess the West can go back and use the WMD argument to justify action against Iran.


 Sure why not? Talk about a clash of cultures, is anyone else apprehensive when you see the Iranian engineers parading around what is supposed to be enriched uranium chanting how God is great, Allah Ackbar indeed.:yikes:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Moral equivalency. Once you accept subjective morality (I do) the next step can be to call all things equal (political bias most often feeds this). Those who do have severe trouble seeing the difference between functional and philosophical moral equivalency. They are the same as the Hollywood villian that says 'you are just like me' based on some perceived flaw in the archtype hero. Simplistic and irrelevant, but sometimes very loud. Political discourse is severely lacking but, horribly and optimistically, some comedians are leading the way. Whodathunkit?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Moral equivalency. Once you accept subjective morality (I do) the next step can be to call all things equal (political bias most often feeds this). Those who do have severe trouble seeing the difference between functional and philosophical moral equivalency. They are the same as the Hollywood villian that says 'you are just like me' based on some perceived flaw in the archtype hero. Simplistic and irrelevant, but sometimes very loud. Political discourse is severely lacking but, horribly and optimistically, some comedians are leading the way. Whodathunkit?


OK Beej you got me on this... care to dumb it down a bit, I'm having a hard time follwoing this. :yikes:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Palestinian blows up a children's school bus. Some say, 'But they are from an occupied territory.' Moral equivalency complete. 

Collateral damage = genocidal massacre (just use the numbers). Moral equivalency complete.

Generally, the equivalency argument is forwarded based purely on personal politics and presented as responses or snide rejoinders. Country A did X. Response: Yes but country A did Y. Conclusion: EVIL, you must ignore X.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

What Beej is trying to say is that two wrongs don't make a right.


Go drink more beer, Beej


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Palestinian blows up a children's school bus. Some say, 'But they are from an occupied territory.' Moral equivalency complete.
> 
> Collateral damage = genocidal massacre (just use the numbers). Moral equivalency complete.
> 
> Generally, the equivalency argument is forwarded based purely on personal politics and presented as responses or snide rejoinders. Country A did X. Response: Yes but country A did Y. Conclusion: EVIL, you must ignore X.


OK... give me a real world example.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> What Beej is trying to say is that two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> 
> Go drink more beer, Beej


Not all wrongs are 'equal' just like not all beers are equal. Morally, Stella cannot be differentiated from Blue. But, for all useful applications to the world around us and in which people live, Stella is better.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> OK... give me a real world example.


You got them. Those were examples from recent common discussions. There's also the beer example that followed your post.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> You got them. Those were examples from recent common discussions. There's also the beer example that followed your post.


OK... we have all heard the cliche that two wrongs do not make a right, however I don't think that argument applies in this case. Irans position in wanting to defend its sovereignty is not about what is right and what is wong... It is a simple fact. Understanding the motivation is the first step in understanding how to peacefully deal with and negotiate an issue of this magnitude.

There are far too many here that agree that dropping bombs premptively is a good thing. I think that it obvious that the use of force in these situations is of little strategic value.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> There are far too many here that agree that dropping bombs premptively is a good thing.


just ask a couple hundred thousand japanese


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> just ask a couple hundred thousand japanese


That was premptive? That's one historical point of view.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> There are far too many here that agree that dropping bombs premptively is a good thing. I think that it obvious that the use of force in these situations is of little strategic value.


I assume you include me in the "far too many here".

I don't advocate dropping bombs as a first step. I advocate it as a last step. We need to try all other things first. The problem is that we really only have two years to take action. If Iran doesn't renounce her nuclear weapon by that time, it might be the only option left.

Given the short time frame, sanctions will not be effective.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

And why should Iran not have nuclear capability? 

I'm sure that if Iran where trading oil in American Greenbacks this would also be a different story...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And why should Iran not have nuclear capability?
> 
> I'm sure that if Iran where trading oil in American Greenbacks this would also be a different story...


There are extremist elements within Iran. Iran actively supports Hamas, who are a terrorist organization. Iran's president denies the Holocaust happened. He says that Israel should be pushed into the sea and wiped off the map. That's reason enough for me.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Should we explore some delusions of our previous PMs and some recent presidents?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Should we explore some delusions of our previous PMs and some recent presidents?


There's that fun equivalency again.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I assume you include me in the "far too many here".
> 
> I don't advocate dropping bombs as a first step. I advocate it as a last step. We need to try all other things first. The problem is that we really only have two years to take action. If Iran doesn't renounce her nuclear weapon by that time, it might be the only option left.
> 
> Given the short time frame, sanctions will not be effective.


UN santions and inspections were working quite well (not to mention daily bombings by US and GB) before the invasion of Iraq (part 2), yet that didn't stop the US from unilaterally dropping bombs
Hardly a "last step"

Iraq was also told to "renounce" their WMDs. Difficult to renounce what one doesn't have or so say UN inspectors and US military

The US hardly needs a valid reason to justify its expansionist policies.
The rising stock price of Halliburton is more than reason enough not to mention oil prices.

Gold hit a record high the other day ( high gold price is usually an indicator of market fears of geo-political instability), oil hit a multi-year high.
You don't see a link between middle east conflict and high oil prices?
What were oil prices back in spring 2001?
War profiteering on the backs of dead civilians and soldiers. The 2nd oldest profession.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> There's that fun equivalency again.


I think they used the wrong comparison... Lets for arguments sake say that the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">UK</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">France</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Russia</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">China</st1lace></st1:country-region> are NOT (by Vandave's definition) extremist states.

So why the rush on stopping <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Iran</st1lace></st1:country-region>? There is still <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Pakistan</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">North Korea</st1lace></st1:country-region> to deal with? Where was will to stop those nations from developing nuclear capability? What made those nations different than <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Iran</st1lace></st1:country-region>?

<st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> is clearly an ally to the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">US</st1lace></st1:country-region>... so scratch them off the list.

<st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region> was useful a balance against <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">China</st1lace></st1:country-region> in the region... so scratch them off the list.

<st1:country-region w:st="on">Pakistan</st1:country-region> has long been a <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">US</st1lace></st1:country-region> client, however given the tenuous hold the leadership has in that country they are probably regretting letting them develop nuclear weapons. Also troublesome given that <st1:country-region w:st="on">Pakistan</st1:country-region> is no friend of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Israel</st1lace></st1:country-region>... but hey given the past we will give them a pass for now, scratch them off the list.

<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">North Korea</st1lace></st1:country-region>... ah, here lies the rub. The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">US</st1lace></st1:country-region> had every opportunity, including the same rhetoric over them developing WMD. What black substance that burns well in cars are they NOT sitting on? (ps. That was a specious question... for Vandave's sake  )


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">North Korea</st1lace></st1:country-region>... ah, here lies the rub. The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">US</st1lace></st1:country-region> had every opportunity, including the same rhetoric over them developing WMD. What black substance that burns well in cars are they NOT sitting on? (ps. That was a specious question... for Vandave's sake  )


You can't expect foreign policy to always be perfectly consistent. Although the WMD development in North Korea and Iran are similar, there are still major differences between the two countries that has to be considered.

North Korea is isolated and surrounded by a number of heavy weight countries (China, South Korea, Japan) in addition to US forces in the region. Economically, they are on the verge of collapse.

Oil has a lot to do with it. Oil has given Iran economic power that North Korea doesn't have. The problem is that the west needs this oil supply and can't stop the flow without major consequences. That makes isolating Iran very difficult.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> UN santions and inspections were working quite well (not to mention daily bombings by US and GB) before the invasion of Iraq (part 2), yet that didn't stop the US from unilaterally dropping bombs
> Hardly a "last step"
> 
> Iraq was also told to "renounce" their WMDs. Difficult to renounce what one doesn't have or so say UN inspectors and US military


I can't believe a lefty is saying the sanctions in Iraq worked. Saddam strengthened his hold on Iraq and enriched himself even further after the sanctions were started. The whole point of having sanctions was to force a government change. Unfortunately, it only hurt the average Iraqi.

The inspections were another thing. I think the UN deserved more time since very little had been found to date. We still had a number of years to continue the search. The problem was that the Iraqis were not fully cooperative giving some the impression they had something to hide.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Oil has a lot to do with it. Oil has given Iran economic power that North Korea doesn't have. The problem is that the west needs this oil supply and can't stop the flow without major consequences. That makes isolating Iran very difficult.


And if the Iran oil was traded for US $, instead of eurodollars I'm sure it would make a difference...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Saddam strengthened his hold on Iraq and enriched himself even further after the sanctions were started. The whole point of having sanctions was to force a government change. Unfortunately, it only hurt the average Iraqi.


I taught the sanction were about weapons, not government change.. Spin little neocon, spin.... (btw, you started it with the lefty comment) 



> Summary: The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has prompted much handwringing over the problems with prewar intelligence. Too little attention has been paid, however, to the flip slide of the picture: that the much-maligned UN-enforced sanctions regime actually worked. Contrary to what critics have said, we now know that containment helped destroy Saddam Hussein's war machine and his capacity to produce weapons.


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040...rtright/containing-iraq-sanctions-worked.html


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> You can't expect foreign policy to always be perfectly consistent. Although the WMD development in North Korea and Iran are similar, there are still major differences between the two countries that has to be considered.
> 
> North Korea is isolated and surrounded by a number of heavy weight countries (China, South Korea, Japan) in addition to US forces in the region. Economically, they are on the verge of collapse.
> 
> Oil has a lot to do with it. Oil has given Iran economic power that North Korea doesn't have. The problem is that the west needs this oil supply and can't stop the flow without major consequences. That makes isolating Iran very difficult.


So because of Irans's oil resources you think that the US is justified in using force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear deterent for defending their sovereignty?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> So because of Irans's oil resources you think that the US is justified in using force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear deterent for defending their sovereignty?


I think different solutions are needed for different countries.

In the case of Iran, we need to figure out how to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. We should first try peaceful means but if it doesn't work, then I think we need to use force.

With North Korea, I think diplomacy has a higher chance of success. They are being pressured by a greater number of countries and won't be able to function without aid from the rest of the world.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I taught the sanction were about weapons, not government change.. Spin little neocon, spin.... (btw, you started it with the lefty comment)


Publically it was about stopping weapons, but realistically, I think it was about regime change.

How is this a spin?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And if the Iran oil was traded for US $, instead of eurodollars I'm sure it would make a difference...


Herring anyone?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Herring anyone?


How is that a red herring? The US buys oil from the open market. Europe and China have long made it know that they are not above purchasing directly from the "well head".


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I think different solutions are needed for different countries.
> 
> In the case of Iran, we need to figure out how to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. We should first try peaceful means but if it doesn't work, then I think we need to use force.
> 
> With North Korea, I think diplomacy has a higher chance of success. They are being pressured by a greater number of countries and won't be able to function without aid from the rest of the world.


Why the particular need to use force? Is it because the population of Iran has elected its governing body as opposed to North Korea and it's Dictator for life?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Yes, and the currency of transaction is a red herring making its rounds on the internet. Another wonderful piece of correlation = causality and mistaken magnitude: ripe for conspiracy theorists to misinterpret.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Yes, and the currency of transaction is a red herring making its rounds on the internet. Another wonderful piece of correlation = causality and mistaken magnitude: ripe for conspiracy theorists to misinterpret.


:yawn: Beej = the MacDoc of non committal commitment...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Publically it was about stopping weapons, but realistically, *I think* it was about regime change.
> 
> How is this a spin?


Don't "they" beam that information to your brain?  
Careful, the Beej may site you for conspiracy theories...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> :yawn: Beej = the MacDoc of non committal commitment...


I'm sorry you got snookered into tossing around that particular conspiracy theory. Don't worry, you're no 'Spec yet, so cheer up. 

On this topic you may want a 'that does not matter in any way whatsoever' or 'that is THE reason' but too bad, thus my comments that you should probably read again.

....
Yes, and the currency of transaction is a red herring making its rounds on the internet. Another wonderful piece of *correlation = causality and mistaken magnitude*: ripe for conspiracy theorists to misinterpret.
....

Your response regarding 'non committal commitment' suggests you may not understand what I was saying (my faulty wording).

Here's one person's explanation that may help clear it up. 

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/pkrugman/oildollar.html

There are more on the internet, but you have to dig through the looney tunes which are, from the ones I've read, at least funnier.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Don't "they" beam that information to your brain?
> Careful, the Beej may site you for conspiracy theories...


Oh dear. Having trouble seeing the difference between that and the Pearl Harbor/JFK/911 tripe?


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Yeah, about Iran's "Wipe Israel off the map" comments - that's pretty good reason to just say no to nukes and Mullahs.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Why the particular need to use force? Is it because the population of Iran has elected its governing body as opposed to North Korea and it's Dictator for life?


The need to use force is to prevent proliferation.

The use of force should also be on the table with North Korea, but again it should be a last resort.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The need to use force is to prevent proliferation.
> 
> The use of force should also be on the table with North Korea, but again it should be a last resort.



What about for Israel, India and Pakistan? Should we have used force to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> What about for Israel, India and Pakistan? Should we have used force to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons?


No you see they are friendlier towards the US... and to server some purpose to them...
As for nuking (or the possibility) Iran, the call is loudest from the US and it may not be if Iran were friendly to them (not that they have to be). That is were my comment from US$/Euro comes in (and not some conspiracy theory).


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> just ask a couple hundred thousand japanese


I could say ask at least 300,000 Chinese...should the bomb be dropped...

In December 1937 Japanese Army units were on the outskirts of the Nationalist capital, Nanjing. Nanjing is an ancient city, and for the Japanese Army, winning it represented both a tactical and a political victory. The Chinese Army put up a token defense, and its leaders fled. The city would be punished harshly when it surrendered. As many as 300,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians would be executed, and rape, theft, and abuse was rampant. 

...and this is just a small part of what the Japanese did under the Emperor. Japan had to be stopped.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JCCanuck said:


> I could say ask at least 300,000 Chinese...should the bomb be dropped...
> ....
> 
> ...and this is just a small part of what the Japanese did under the Emperor. Japan had to be stopped.


There is a difference between dropping the bomb during the beginning of a war and using it in the death throes of war on civilians....

And I would never advocate nukes...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> No you see they are friendlier towards the US... and to server some purpose to them...
> As for nuking (or the possibility) Iran, the call is loudest from the US and it may not be if Iran were friendly to them (not that they have to be). That is were my comment from US$/Euro comes in (and not some conspiracy theory).


I know that... and you know that. I want to see how Vandave justifies this. 

So only countries that are "friendly" to the US and their interests are allowed to have nuclear weapons?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

JCCanuck said:


> I could say ask at least 300,000 Chinese...should the bomb be dropped...
> 
> In December 1937 Japanese Army units were on the outskirts of the Nationalist capital, Nanjing. Nanjing is an ancient city, and for the Japanese Army, winning it represented both a tactical and a political victory. The Chinese Army put up a token defense, and its leaders fled. The city would be punished harshly when it surrendered. As many as 300,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians would be executed, and rape, theft, and abuse was rampant.
> 
> ...and this is just a small part of what the Japanese did under the Emperor. Japan had to be stopped.


The same could be said about China and its invasion of Tibet... Oooppps there's that Moral relativism again. Sorry Beej, cover your ears.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> What about for Israel, India and Pakistan? Should we have used force to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons?


Pakistan does seem like yet another case of 'the enemy of my enemy' politics. Comparing the other two with Iran is laughable. :lmao: India is in a border dispute (not threatening to wipe a nation in racist pursuit) and Israel is in a huge mess but does advocate wiping out Iran, just ensuring that Iran doesn't go wipe out Israel (as has been publicly stated). This comes back to equivalency. Iran = India = Israel? You've got something with Pakistan, but the other two not so much.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The same could be said about China and its invasion of Tibet... Oooppps there's that Moral relativism again. Sorry Beej, cover your ears.


Yep slide away from a reason to end the war with Japan by...sorry let's talk about Tibet.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Beej = the MacDoc of non committal commitment...


Pardon me!!! - what the hell is that supposed to mean??? ......I take my stance and stick with it and support it. Need some new reading glasses perhaps.....age related n'all.

••••

The "currency" issue is hardly a red herring - it's an economic weapon.
Whether it would have the magnitude of effect some propose IS an open question.
Is it part of this geopolitical conflict?? Yep. The US has put itself in a weak position and Iran will exploit it as a response.



> A Threat to the U.S. Economy?
> The debate over the ultimate financial impact of trading oil in euros rather than dollars is a complex one, but according to some experts such a move could lead to a huge drop in value for the American currency, potentially putting the U.S. economy in its greatest crisis since the depression era of the 1930s.


http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2314.cfm


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> What about for Israel, India and Pakistan? Should we have used force to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons?


No, for a few reasons:

1. They already have them;
2. The foreign policy approach the west takes for each country isn't going to be the same. I don't understand why there is such a huge expectation on the left for foreign policy to be perfectly consistent. The approach with Iran will be different from Pakistan and North Korea. That isn't hypocritical, it's just the reality of the world.
3. The concept of moral relativism and moral equivalency is flawed. Beej already tackled this subject and I agree with him. Democracy and freedom are not equivalent to dictatorship and countries run on religion. We have moral superiority. Are we perfect, or is the US perfect? Of course not, but we are far from being moral equivalents.

Foreign policy, whether you like it or not, is meant to serve your own needs. A nuclear Iran does not serve the needs of the west.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> We have moral superiority.


XX)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I just love that royal WE 

Sorry your views do NOT represent mine OR the "west" - whatever cold war meme that might purport to represent.

Sovereignty stops and starts at borders - the sooner the neoCons get that idea through their wooly little minds the better. 

Iran and Israel have a serious issue with each other that THEY need to work out with help from other sovereign powers WHEN ASKED.

The US going to the UN when it suits them and not bothering with it OR treaties ( India - nuclear prolif ) when they feel like it gives the US exactly ZERO moral ground to deal with another sovereign power.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I take my stance and stick with it
> 
> ••••
> 
> ...


I have to agree with you on that.
....
Read the Krugman piece and find others that question the presumption.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> No, for a few reasons:
> 
> 1. They already have them;


That wasn't the question. The question was should we have bombed them prior to them developing nuclear weapons?



Vandave said:


> 2. The foreign policy approach the west takes for each country isn't going to be the same. I don't understand why there is such a huge expectation on the left for foreign policy to be perfectly consistent. The approach with Iran will be different from Pakistan and North Korea. That isn't hypocritical, it's just the reality of the world.


No... it is hypocritical given the language that is being used... "Nation Building", "Democracy", "Security", etc...

The fact remains that the likelihood of a "hot" war spinning up in Korea is far greater than one with Iran (unless of course the US strikes preemptively).



Vandave said:


> 3. The concept of moral relativism and moral equivalency is flawed. Beej already tackled this subject and I agree with him. Democracy and freedom are not equivalent to dictatorship and countries run on religion. We have moral superiority. Are we perfect, or is the US perfect? Of course not, but we are far from being moral equivalents.
> 
> Foreign policy, whether you like it or not, is meant to serve your own needs. A nuclear Iran does not serve the needs of the west.


Nope... it is not flawed. It is a rational approach to an irrational problem. You and Beej are making huge leaps in your logic when you assume that we have a moral high-ground from which we can rain down destruction on other sovereign nations with impunity.

As for the "countries run on religion" comment... care to go a little further? So why is that a bad thing? Or is it only a bad thing if that country isn't run on *your* religion? Case in point religious influence in say the US conservative movement? So how much religion is good? And at what point does it become bad?

I'm going to hold you to that statement on religion in future discussions.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I just love that royal WE
> 
> Sorry your views do NOT represent mine OR the "west" - whatever cold war meme that might purport to represent.
> 
> ...


By 'We', I am refering to governments of the west, including Canada. It doesn't matter that your views are not the same as mine. We live in a democracy and have freedom. That is morally superior to the alternatives. In that respect, you are included in my 'We' definition.

'We', being the West, have a serious issue with Iran as well. It isn't just Israel that has a problem.



MacDoc said:


> The US going to the UN when it suits them and not bothering with it OR treaties ( India - nuclear prolif ) when they feel like it gives the US exactly ZERO moral ground to deal with another sovereign power.


Please give me an example of a country that has perfect moral clarity, or better yet, define 'Morals'. 

No country has a perfect track record and the US has made all sorts of mistakes in the past. But, for the most part, they are a net positive to the world and they have done lots of good things.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Nope... it is not flawed. It is a rational approach to an irrational problem. You and Beej are making huge leaps in your logic when you assume that we have a moral high-ground from which we can rain down destruction on other sovereign nations with impunity.
> 
> As for the "countries run on religion" comment... care to go a little further? So why is that a bad thing? Or is it only a bad thing if that country isn't run on *your* religion? Case in point religious influence in say the US conservative movement? So how much religion is good? And at what point does it become bad?
> 
> I'm going to hold you to that statement on religion in future discussions.


I made that assumption? We have a 'high ground' for practical purposes in geopolitics; true morality is for God. You seem to be all over the map on how you want to mischaracterize and lump together two different people ('rain down destruction on other sovereign nations with impunity') and how you want to try to place the U.S., in geopolitics, in the same place as Iran. Try one misguided initiative at a time, please. 

.....
Case in point religious influence in say the US conservative movement? So how much religion is good? And at what point does it become bad?
.....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> But, for the most part, they are a net positive to the world and they have done lots of good things.


Oh they're going to complain about that one. It challenges the founding faiths of so many: U.S. = bad.

:lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Oh they're going to complain about that one. It challenges the founding faiths of so many: U.S. = bad.
> 
> :lmao:


Wow Beej, quite the fence sitter there. Still refusing to take any positions yet ready to imply much (without assumption of any stance).

A magical "they"? Who do you imply by "they"? Some not so defined boogeyman?

Faith, did you not imply that it requires no-logic? Uhmm

I have yet to see anyone here say U.S. = bad, I have seen people say that US foreign policy has not served them well lately...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> .....
> Case in point religious influence in say the US conservative movement? So how much religion is good? And at what point does it become bad?
> .....


Talk about trying to go all over the place.... grab a beer young man.... relax...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Wow Beej, quite the fence sitter there. Still refusing to take any positions yet ready to imply much (without assumption of any stance).
> 
> A magical "they"? Who do you imply by "they"? Some not so defined boogeyman?
> 
> ...


You're really playing this approach up (odd, considering the un-illumination in some religious threads).  Keep it up, I'd like to see where you're going with it. :clap: 
.....
'I have yet to see anyone here say'

If that's the measure, it may come back and bite you in the ass.

'I have seen people say that US foreign policy has not served them well lately'

Much better point. I tried to describe the sense of this with you and Harper -- the constancy, repetitiveness, shrillness and close-mindedness all factor in but it is a subjective line. For someone who likes to toss around the neocon label, you should understand this concept. Could make for a good thread.
....
I'm sorry I didn't commit to anything in this post and thus offend your desire for contrast. Just for you: Black = White; discuss.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Talk about trying to go all over the place.... grab a beer young man.... relax...


I was trying to help DJ pick one, so I highlighted the one I thought was more interesting. Purely self-serving.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> I made that assumption? We have a 'high ground' for practical purposes in geopolitics; true morality is for God. You seem to be all over the map on how you want to mischaracterize and lump together two different people ('rain down destruction on other sovereign nations with impunity') and how you want to try to place the U.S., in geopolitics, in the same place as Iran. Try one misguided initiative at a time, please.


Whoa, that was unexpected from a usually rational and low key Beej.

Rather than attacking the way in which I made my argument why not expand on how you see that we have a 'high ground' for practical purposes in geopolitics? I want to know how and why I am better than say people in the Middle East or Asia?

As for my 'rain down destruction on other sovereign nations with impunity' comment... I think that language was accurate and descriptive in terms of what preemptive strike would mean to someone in a foreign nation. Rather than focusing on the language I used why not address the intent of the comment. What "right" allows the US to strike preemptively at another sovereign nation?

As for comparing the US to Iran... why not? It is clear the US is more powerful than Iran. Does that give them them some special status on the world stage that make them more valuable as compared to other nations?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> You're really playing this approach up (odd, considering the un-illumination in some religious threads).


Don't have much to say on that subject - I respect people's religious choices. The good, the bad, the ugly and the plain stupid... 
I may start the church of the boiling spaghetti as an offshoot of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - because they don't follow the true path....




Beej said:


> Much better point. I tried to describe the sense of this with you and Harper -- the constancy, repetitiveness, shrillness and close-mindedness all factor in but it is a subjective line. For someone who likes to toss around the neocon label, you should understand this concept. Could make for a good thread.


It's funny how you blot out the positive (albeit few) I have said about Harper. In truth some of what he preaches, I agree with. The major problem with the Cons is in the implementation and the flip-flops once in power. Why is it that fiscally conservatives rarely are? 





Beej said:


> I'm sorry I didn't commit to anything in this post and thus offend your desire for contrast.


Not offended, it just that you seem to want contrast, debate and thought but are only adding innuendo...

PS, noticed that you did not address a single one of my questions....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why does the critical concept of sovereignty not get into play.

Until we HAVE an enforceable set of world laws agreed upon and with mechanisms for enforcement as we do with provinces, within the US, developing in Europe between formerly fully sovereign nations...then the ONE anchor has in a turbulent world is the FULL security within their borders.

Step across the line then it's their world, their laws. I might deplore Japanese driving on the "wrong side" but it's THEIR decision.

ANYTHING else between sovereign powers is up for negotiation including everything from mutual defence to currency exchange to treaty obligation.

In the sense of sovereignty ALL recognized nations are on an equal footing and that needs to be SEEN to be so.

Threaten that......which the US regularly does with the blundering approach of the current regime..... and it raises alarums and hackles world wide - even with "friends".

Right now as a super power the US may be a demonstration of the concept of "first among *equals*"

Somebody tell the US about the *equals* concept.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

BTW Iran's fixation on Israel is little different than the US fixation on Cuba.....except Iran has not attempted to invade Israel...the same cannot be said for the US and Cuba.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> I know that... and you know that. I want to see how Vandave justifies this.
> 
> So only countries that are "friendly" to the US and their interests are allowed to have nuclear weapons?


if only AIPAC stood for "America Iran Political Action Committee" Iran would have nothing to worry about


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Whoa, that was unexpected from a usually rational and low key Beej.
> .....
> I want to know how and why I am better than say people in the Middle East or Asia?
> ...
> ...


Ok. Maybe it's the Deej in me. 
....
I didn't say you as an individual were.
....
Your words were intentionally chosen to lump together and mischaracterise, so they are an issue. Sorry, but if I said 'you want Iran to wipe out Israel' you may want to discuss my wording and not some concept that I was supposedly getting at. 

I don't think the U.S. has that right, but a coalition (a real one, not the 'willing') MAY have that 'right'. Circumstances matter. I don't think we're there yet for Iran, but some sabre-rattling is in order, from leaders more credible than Bush. 

Aside: Satisfied AS? What do you think should be done, if anything at all (DJ and AS)?
....
Go ahead and compare; the type of comparisons made say a lot. Is it ok if I :lmao: at some of them?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> It's funny how you blot out the positive (albeit few) I have said about Harper.
> ....
> Why is it that fiscally conservatives rarely are?
> ....
> ...


Not the intention. I'm commenting the repetitivenss etc. or your recent rampage. 
....
Politicians.
...
Quite possible. And you?

Pose questions (without hellfire and brimstone) that you will also answer. I'd love to do that instead of pot shots, mischaracterisation etc.; but I'm game for either if I have to.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Why does the critical concept of sovereignty not get into play.
> 
> Until we HAVE an enforceable set of world laws agreed upon and with mechanisms for enforcement as we do with provinces, within the US, developing in Europe between formerly fully sovereign nations...then the ONE anchor has in a turbulent world is the FULL security within their borders.
> 
> ...


Good post. Hugs or is that still not ok with you?
.....
We are in fairly close agreement on this topic (relative to the wide range of options), as on many, but with some differences.
...
"Until we HAVE an enforceable set of world laws agreed upon and with mechanisms for enforcement as we do with provinces, within the US, developing in Europe between formerly fully sovereign nations...then the ONE anchor has in a turbulent world is the FULL security within their borders."
....
I think there can be reasons to act (not unilaterally); the world has sat back for too many genocides only to make movies about them later. But it is extremely contentious and the idiotic and childish U.S. and France behaviour, as seen regarding Iraq, is unhelpful. 

To a certain extent, I think the 'laws' will emerge from practices, not just from discussions. Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somlia, Sudan, Iraq etc. are setting guideposts to what is acceptable, beneficial and damaging. It's a long process, open to ruination, but it is not impossible.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I don't think the U.S. has that right, but a coalition (a real one, not the 'willing') MAY have that 'right'. Circumstances matter. I don't think we're there yet for Iran, but some sabre-rattling is in order, from leaders more credible than Bush.
> 
> Aside: Satisfied AS? What do you think should be done, if anything at all (DJ and AS)?


Beej, I knew you had it in you. :clap: 

What should be done? Depends on what you think the problem is. 

Seems that Bush and Cie have escalated the problem and it's making matters worse. I'd have the Ruskies have a little talk with Iran (maybe give them some Tank technology or some other bone). If the US is really gun hoe for a showdown, have Israel take the diplomatic hit by bombing a few facilities in Iran and declare it was their self-preservation.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> ...
> "Until we HAVE an enforceable set of world laws agreed upon and with mechanisms for enforcement as we do with provinces, within the US, developing in Europe between formerly fully sovereign nations...then the ONE anchor has in a turbulent world is the FULL security within their borders."
> ....
> I think there can be reasons to act (not unilaterally); the world has sat back for too many genocides only to make movies about them later. But it is extremely contentious and the idiotic and childish U.S. and France behaviour, as seen regarding Iraq, is unhelpful..


This sounds more like a UN debate and the US has been fairly clear on what their intentions are....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, I knew you had it in you. :clap:
> 
> What should be done? Depends on what you think the problem is.
> 
> Seems that Bush and Cie have escalated the problem and it's making matters worse. I'd have the Ruskies have a little talk with Iran (maybe give them some Tank technology or some other bone). If the US is really gun hoe for a showdown, have Israel take the diplomatic hit by bombing a few facilities in Iran and declare it was their self-preservation.


This is moving along nicely. 

So, to complicate it. In the event of diplomatic failure, Israel handles it knowing it will be allowed while Iran knows (from some sabre-rattling) that any move against Israel will be squashed? I'm leaning towards this because it acknowledges that: a) Israel is justified in being worried about Iran and, b) Iran hasn't actually done anything yet. However, it does implicitly ok unilateral preemption. This is the difficulty I have with the fairly pragmatic solution: optics and precedent.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Ok. Maybe it's the Deej in me.
> ....
> I didn't say you as an individual were.
> ....


OK... substitute "I" for "we". How are we better than people in the Middle East or Asia? Better to the point that justifies our use of force over them? What gives us our 'Moral High-Ground'?



Beej said:


> I don't think the U.S. has that right, but a coalition (a real one, not the 'willing') MAY have that 'right'. Circumstances matter. I don't think we're there yet for Iran, but some sabre-rattling is in order, from leaders more credible than Bush.


I agree that a coalition could as well. This is how democracy works. I don't hear many rushing to join Bush in the sabre-rattling so is it fair to say that perhaps there is NOT consensus on Iran having Nuclear weapons?



Beej said:


> Aside: Satisfied AS? What do you think should be done, if anything at all (DJ and AS)?


The bigger answer to this question is has little to do with exerting military influence in a resource rich region of the world. The answer lies in finding a way not to be so dependent upon foreign energy resources... 

The US is a marvelous industrious amazing country. When motivated they can do just about anything. They gained their independence from britain. They fought a bloody civil war over slavery. They industrialized their way out of the 1920's depression. They fought in two World Wars. They developed Atomic Energy. They put a man on the moon. 

What is stopping them from developing the means of being no longer reliant on foreign energy resources? It is not because they are incapable of doing something... it is because they are unwilling to do it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> OK... substitute "I" for "we". How are we better than people in the Middle East or Asia? Better to the point that justifies our use of force over them? What gives us our 'Moral High-Ground'?
> ....
> I agree that a coalition could as well. This is how democracy works.
> ....
> The bigger answer to this question is has little to do with exerting military influence in a resource rich region of the world. The answer lies in finding a way not to be so dependent upon foreign energy resources...


We aren't 'better'. Our political structures (real democracy) are 'better' for geopolitical interaction (spare me any rant about undemocracy in the U.S.) and our stance on not wanting to wipeout a nation (as different from a government) is 'better' for the same geopolitical interaction.
.....
An important point.
....
I understant the concept of the 'oil motive' and so on and so forth. That's much longer term and not an answer. What would you like to see done or not done on the issue at hand? Let's take AS up on his challenge and be a little clearer on what we'd like to see about the Iran-nuclear development issue.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> We aren't 'better'. Our political structures (real democracy) are 'better' for geopolitical interaction (spare me any rant about undemocracy in the U.S.) and our stance on not wanting to wipeout a nation (as different from a government) is 'better' for the same geopolitical interaction.


Better based on the fact we have a democratic process? OK, so by that argument The current Palestinian government (even though they elect Hamas a known terrorist organization) is as legitimate as the Israeli or US Government?

Call me crazy, but I don't think that moral certitude comes from the rule of a mob. Otherwise we have to rethink the Nazi's in Germany don't we?



Beej said:


> An important point.


Yes it is an important point because clearly having a democratic process does not by default provide a group with any more moral position than anyone else. See arguments in other threads related to same sex marriage and or racism.



Beej said:


> I understant the concept of the 'oil motive' and so on and so forth. That's much longer term and not an answer. What would you like to see done or not done on the issue at hand? Let's take AS up on his challenge and be a little clearer on what we'd like to see about the Iran-nuclear development issue.


Now wait a sec... how is this not a valid solution to the problem? Short of getting rid of nuclear weapons entirely (not going to happen as Pandora's box has been opened) how else to solve the problem without resorting to dropping bombs?

Balancing out the Middle East in the long run might in fact be a good thing. Perhaps it might start getting those nations to behave as adults (much in the same way The West and The Soviet Union ended up). The issue here is that the US proves to be a destabilizing influence in the Middle East. There were conflicts in the 60 and 70's between Israel and its neighbours... It wasn't until the US setup permanent shop in Saudia Arabia that this really became a global issue.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Moral positioning is not inherent it comes from practice.

If a nation or an organization willingly abides by, and is seen to uphold the treaties and agreements it has entered into, and does so consistently over time then that person or organization may claim to hold the moral high ground over another who has abrogated agreements and acted outside treaties without regard to them.

The US is in this position. - it has lost respect worldwide not only for it's undertaking a Preemptive action foreign policy openly ( something that it least SAID was not policy - reality is another thing ) but for acting in breach of any number of treaties.

•••

What to do??
IF the 900 lb gorilla is erratic then any real consensus for dealing with rogue or failed states is almost impossible.

For the UN and World Court to develop actionable censure and intervention the 900 lb gorilla has to be behind them.

The US won't because the US bloody well knows it's own history of doing as it pleases where it pleases for at least a hundred years or more



> Eland portrays our modern foreign policy in a useful and eye-opening way, allowing us to understand what otherwise would remain a confusing enigma. Our foreign policy is, in a sense, *a uniquely American golem bearing democracy and good works at the point of a gun, martial in leaning, without conscience, judgment, ethics or humanity. Brought forth to do good and helpful things, the military-industrial complex and the foreign policy infrastructure have developed lives and untenable desires of their own.*
> 
> Public choice theory, invoked at various times in the book to explain a foreign policy that for many Americans seems insane, unwise or unexplainable, holds that "when benefits are concentrated among certain influential or well-organized groups and costs are diffused among the entire American public, the vested interests will dictate policy. This maxim is even truer in foreign policy than in domestic affairs." Lesson one from The Empire Has No Clothes may well be this basic reality check, shattering the oft-heard charge from Washington that to criticize American foreign policy is to rescind one’s love of country. Instead, to loudly criticize elites in Washington and the vested interests is to be most traditionally and satisfyingly American.
> 
> ...


http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski101.html

Now this is a review of book









These are comments on the book. Who is the reviewer?



> Karen Kwiatkowski [send her mail] is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel


If SHE sees the US this way, concurs with the author of the book who sees the US for what it is..........what possible moral high ground can ANYONE ascribe to our southern neighbor.

and this one just published is not going to help polish the tarnished silver












> Regime change" did not begin with the administration of George W. Bush, but has been an integral part of U.S. foreign policy for more than one hundred years. Starting with the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 and continuing through the Spanish-American War and the Cold War and into our own time, the United States has not hesitated to overthrow governments that stood in the way of its political and economic goals. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is the latest, though perhaps not the last, example of the dangers inherent in these operations.
> 
> In Overthrow, Stephen Kinzer tells the stories of the audacious politicians, spies, military commanders, and business executives who took it upon themselves to depose monarchs, presidents, and prime ministers. He also shows that the U.S. government has often pursued these operations without understanding the countries involved; as a result, many of them have had disastrous long-term consequences.
> 
> In a compelling and provocative history that takes readers to fourteen countries, including Cuba, Iran, South Vietnam, Chile, and Iraq


http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.co...asp?z=y&btob=Y&endeca=1&isbn=0805078614&itm=2

I find it amusing that a retired US Air Force officer uses the same Pogo phrase about her nation that I find so apt.



> "We have met the enemy and he is us."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Call me crazy, but I don't think that moral certitude comes from the rule of a mob. Otherwise we have to rethink the Nazi's in Germany don't we?


Agreed, and it's good to see we've moved to discussing complexity, and beyond the other poop.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Various things...


Hugs? Is it that hard to do?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Hugs? Is it that hard to do?


Hey, we are having difficulty getting GW Bush fellatio, this may also be hard...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Seems that Bush and Cie have escalated the problem and it's making matters worse. I'd have the Ruskies have a little talk with Iran (maybe give them some Tank technology or some other bone). If the US is really gun hoe for a showdown, have Israel take the diplomatic hit by bombing a few facilities in Iran and declare it was their self-preservation.


For the most part I agree with you. However, I doubt the Ruskies are going to do much to help the situation.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> It is clear the US is more powerful than Iran. Does that give them them some special status on the world stage that make them more valuable as compared to other nations?


Yes, it does. Life isn't fair.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> As for the "countries run on religion" comment... care to go a little further? So why is that a bad thing? Or is it only a bad thing if that country isn't run on *your* religion? Case in point religious influence in say the US conservative movement? So how much religion is good? And at what point does it become bad?
> 
> I'm going to hold you to that statement on religion in future discussions.


Sure, I'll go further. Hold me to whatever I say.

In my opinion, religion and the State should be separated. I don't think combining them is a good thing. 

The US Republican Party definately has strong ties to religion, but they are not the State and they have to live up to the Constitution. In contrast, Iran is an Islamic State that crushes personal freedoms.

So... how much is too much you ask?...I think politics and religion are best kept separate. To me the US Republican Party has too much, while Iran has orders of magnitude too much.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc--I'm going to ask you to cut down on these lugubrious posts where you bring in an army of book cover scans and reviews, or a brace of (copyrighted) news articles/editorial cartoons to bolster some position. 

The MacDoc argument is usually buried way too far inside this clutter.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF Do you actually have something *supportable* to contribute or just reading challenged? Maybe check your 50¢ words at the source.

Arguments to have impact require backup.
Backup consists of facts and reputable opinions on the interpretation by experts in the field.
When a citizen like an Air Force officer makes a statement about the moral bankruptcy of her own nation's foreign policy.......and in words that are indeed lugubrious .......and those words are supporting a book ( one amongst many ) ALSO showing the questionable nature of US foreign policy - then there is weight to an argument.
You can skip the difficult parts of rational and supported parts of discourse if you wish and just "say it's so"....very Bush like. Dogmatic, unsupported.

So for the Readers Digest version for you.
*The US due to it's historical actions has no moral high ground to stand on in dictating to others how to conduct the affairs of their sovereign nations.*

Backup?? - see previous post.

•••

How much Vandave?/ Even over 200 years ago the separation of church and state was seen as critical in writing the American Constitution and France at times took it rather to an extreme.



> Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution


http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.co...asp?z=y&btob=Y&endeca=1&isbn=0805078614&itm=2

Over time governments and the institutions that form it needs make rational decisions or face overthrow. The heart of most religions is unchanging dogmatic faith without requiring supporting reason.
That's antithetical to "progress" - one reason religions are most often associated with conservative aspects of the political spectrum.

How far different are the conditions of Galileo or a stem cell researcher in the US today? Knowledge suppressed for religious reasons.

In democracies, rule by fiat, so beloved of heirarchal religions has been replaced, in theory at least, by exercise of reasoned debate and compromise. 
Scientific method is secular, based on thesis, antithesis and open ended examination and proofs regardless of the individual beliefs of the researchers involved. Results are based on proofs, and proofs that are peer reviewed.

Ideally the process of governing should partake of the same methodology, once more regardless of individual beliefs and with checks and balances built in ( peer review)

Those wise in governing and in interpreting history have seen time and again over the centuries of accumulated human knowledge the divisiveness of favouring one religion over another and incorporating religious dogma into the secular affairs of governance.

So the best answer in my mind to "how much"???........none.
It belongs neither in science nor governance as any part of the operative principles.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> .....


So, after all that, still no hugs?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> The heart of most religions is unchanging dogmatic faith without requiring supporting reason.


I dunno, MacDoc. That line sounds more like your dogmatic stance against most religions.

It seems to me that anti-religiousness and religiousness are two sides of the same coin. Your zeal in 'testifying' against religion is often matched by the force with which offended people (in the threads in which you have participated) back up religion as a positive force in their lives.

I don't doubt you have real issues with religion, or that there aren't a brace of critical discussions we could have about, say, the influence of organized religion on the state. But I think you often paint with too broad a brush.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Yes, it does. Life isn't fair.


Gee such a novel response... so where does that argument end?

During the next Rwanda we get to say sorry... too bad, Life isn't fair.

When the US annexes Canada they get to say sorry... too bad, Life isn't fair.

The next time China cracks down on internal dissidents they get to say sorry... too bad, Life isn't fair.

Where does that argument stop?

Do all single parents get no longer get assistance... Life isn't fair.

We should repeal suffrage... Life isn't fair.

We should repeal civil rights... Life isn't fair.


You know something, Life isn't fair. But it is our duty it make it more so. It is certainly our duty to behave in a manner consistent with treating other people fairly and equally... there is an other word for this. It is called Justice. 

You want a cliche, here's one for ya... Might does not make right. Just because the US is more powerful than Iran, does not give them the right to be able to do anything they want. Just because I could kick your ass, doesn't give me the right to give you an ass whoppin because you may or may not be dim.  (PS. that was a little joke and not a threat). Are you telling me you can't see the difference?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Are you telling me you can't see the difference?


the real scary part is that he probably doesn't
closet neo-cons are the worst kind


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Sure, I'll go further. Hold me to whatever I say.
> 
> In my opinion, religion and the State should be separated. I don't think combining them is a good thing.
> 
> ...



Wait a sec... back the truck up. Personal Freedoms? What is the difference if the religiously backed conservatives in the US stack the supreme court with pro life judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade and any personal freedoms crushed by the government of Iran?

Are you thinking that Iran is a theocratic dictatorship? It is an Islamic Republic, and in fact they have a democratic process to elect their leaders. Unlike say Afghanistan under the Taliban, women can vote in Iran.

The Supreme Leader of Iran is elected by an Assembly of Experts. The Assembly of Experts is elected by popular vote. Granted there are many other moving parts in their government... but the fact remains that there is a democratic process. The Iranians got their constitution in 1979 in a popular revolution. There is the notion of the "Closed Loop" of power in Iran, however one could argue that in the US there is a "Closed Loop" of power. In Iran the power is held by clerics, in the US the power is held by corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran

I fundamentally (ha ha ha... little joke again) agree that religion should not be the basis for founding a modern society and should not enshrined in any way beyond "freedom of" in any constitution. That being said "people in glass houses should not throw stones" meaning that given the amount of religious influence there is in Western politics, who a we to criticize them?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I fundamentally (ha ha ha... little joke again) agree that religion should not be the basis for founding a modern society and should not enshrined in any way beyond "freedom of" in any constitution. That being said "people in glass houses should not throw stones" meaning that given the amount of religious influence there is in Western politics, who a we to criticize them?


abortion - bad
gay marriage - bad
stem cell research - bad

all goes against "the will of God"

war - good


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Wait a sec... back the truck up. Personal Freedoms? What is the difference if the religiously backed conservatives in the US stack the supreme court with pro life judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade and any personal freedoms crushed by the government of Iran?


Big difference between "IF" and "happens every day". The Supreme Court in the US is designed to be neutral.



da_jonesy said:


> The Supreme Leader of Iran is elected by an Assembly of Experts. The Assembly of Experts is elected by popular vote. Granted there are many other moving parts in their government... but the fact remains that there is a democratic process. The Iranians got their constitution in 1979 in a popular revolution. There is the notion of the "Closed Loop" of power in Iran, however one could argue that in the US there is a "Closed Loop" of power. In Iran the power is held by clerics, in the US the power is held by corporations.


You can have any colour you like, as long as it is black.

Corporations don't mark an X at the ballot box.



da_jonesy said:


> I fundamentally (ha ha ha... little joke again) agree that religion should not be the basis for founding a modern society and should not enshrined in any way beyond "freedom of" in any constitution. That being said "people in glass houses should not throw stones" meaning that given the amount of religious influence there is in Western politics, who a we to criticize them?


Politics and government are two different things. Political parties are free to stand for what they want, including a religious agenda. The institutions of government should be neutral to religion. I think we have the correct balance in the West.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Gee such a novel response... so where does that argument end?


You're missing my point.

The US is the most powerful nation on earth, has the higher GDP and the most powerful military. They also happen to stand for freedom and democracy. Does that give them special status and make them more important? Of course it does. That might not seem fair to you, but that's just reality.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Politics and government are two different things. Political parties are free to stand for what they want, including a religious agenda. The institutions of government should be neutral to religion. I think we have the correct balance in the West.


Are you saying that there is religious influence in the West?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> It seems to me that anti-religiousness and religiousness are two sides of the same coin


No Max they're not just as religion and science are not two sides of the same coin.

There is GOOD reason for separation of church and state. 

You don't build a skyscraper on "belief" it won't fall down...you build it based on an evolving body of knowledge that actively seeks change and improvement as fundamental principle.

The same principles apply to building a peaceable diverse society.
...and perhaps you missed the word *most*.

Quakers are one such exception.

Repression and religion need not go hand in hand - it's the underlying hierarchal and excluding approach that most religions take the tends to lead to that when mixed with politics.
China is an example where single party dogma leads to repression without any religious overtones despite Mao's best efforts at ascendancy.

That the "party" is changing it's approach shows it's modification of theory against results in the real world.
THAT is embracing progressive method, not dogma.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> There is the notion of the "Closed Loop" of power in Iran, however one could argue that in the US there is a "Closed Loop" of power. In Iran the power is held by clerics, in the US the power is held by corporations.
> ....
> That being said "people in glass houses should not throw stones" meaning that given the amount of religious influence there is in Western politics, who a we to criticize them?


This is where the arguments generally fall off the rails. Can you not see the difference (to use the standard approach)?
....
We are in a very different position. Can you not see the difference (to use the standard approach)?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The US is the most powerful nation on earth, has the higher GDP and the most powerful military. They also happen to stand for freedom and democracy. Does that give them special status and make them more important? Of course it does. That might not seem fair to you, but that's just reality.


In a world of sovereign nations the operative phrase is "so what".

The US purports to "stand" for freedom and democracy - the reality is they don't in practice.
That you equate a high GDP with some sort of moral superiority shows just how far down the hook has set.
That you even equate high GDP with societal wealth also reveals your lack of understanding of "wealth" within a societal setting.

Whether I am "wealthy" and you not accords me no status at the voting table.
You smack of those who equated worldly success with being "blessed" and or superior moral character.

Spain was once the 900 lb gorilla - ask South American and Mexican native peoples their opinion of Spanish "superiority". 

The trite approach is that "with great power comes great responsibility"
There is SOME truth in that but with a few exceptions ( Dean Acheson/Truman ) the responsible part has been in significant disrepair for US foreign policy as it was for Soviet foreign policy.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The Supreme Court in the US is designed to be neutral.


You can design something anyway you like it. If in practice a segment of religious activists can skew the courts to one side or another than it is unfair. OOhhh yeah, I forgot. Life ain't fair.



Vandave said:


> Corporations don't mark an X at the ballot box.


And the average citizen doesn't donate millions of dollars to campaigns and lobby groups. Now who needs to give their head a shake? Or haven't you been paying attention to how government works here?

My analogy stands.



Vandave said:


> Politics and government are two different things. Political parties are free to stand for what they want, including a religious agenda. The institutions of government should be neutral to religion. I think we have the correct balance in the West.


Politics and government are one and the same, they are not two separate things. I would argue that our politics and government are better than those in the US. That doesn't give us the right (even if we could) to impose our way of life, our way of thinking on others. We choose to live this way. The Iranians choose to live that way as they thought it was better than what they had under the Shaw.

You can't argue that government institutions should be free from religious influence on one hand and then support parties having a religious agenda on the other. Which is it? No religion at all? or It is OK to mix religion and politics?

Personally I don't think that religion has any place in government other than everyone has the right to choose and practice their own religion. You still haven't even come close to reasoning why because we have the illusion of non religious interference in our political system, this gives us the right to preemptively bomb some other country back into the stone age.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> In a world of sovereign nations the operative phrase is "so what".


Not a truer word spoken in this thread. :clap:


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> This is where the arguments generally fall off the rails. Can you not see the difference (to use the standard approach)?
> ....
> We are in a very different position. Can you not see the difference (to use the standard approach)?


But it doesn't matter what the position is in this case... Is there a difference? Practically and philosophically sure there is... but that difference does not give us the right to preemptively strike another sovereign nation.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Is it ok for Israel to preemptively strike?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Is it ok for Israel to preemptively strike?


Now that is a way more interesting question. 

Given the security issue they probably have a way more reasonable argument than the US ever could in justifying the preemptive use of force. I'm not sure on that one.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Is it ok for Israel to preemptively strike?


ask Cubans how they feel about that one


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Too many tangled concepts.
For Israel to have a "right" to strike someone, some body or some treaty has to grant that "right".
Rights are agreements between parties.
Generally in international law an unwritten and sometimes written principle between sovereign nations is the concept of *retaliation upon attack/invasion.*
I suspect this is the closest to a right that currently exists as other nations will generally look favourable upon a response as they did with teh US and Afghanistan.

"Imminent attack" gets cloudy
"Potential imminent danger" cloudier yet.
"maybe they have WMDs and they aren't near us"........ I don't think so.

Perhaps the better question is it *"wise"* for Israel to pre-emptivel strike? That's got a decent two sides to it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Now that is a way more interesting question.
> 
> Given the security issue they probably have a way more reasonable argument than the US ever could in justifying the preemptive use of force. I'm not sure on that one.


This is part of the complexity. 'Never' is too strong (I could easily make the circumstances much more precarious). I'm not advocating unilateral U.S. bombing, but there's nothing wrong or 'neocon' about considering preemptive action against a sovereign nation. The specifics really make the difference and, although universal consistency would be nice, we don't have it yet and can't be beholden to repeat past mistakes just to be consistent. We can learn from past successes and mistakes. 'Never' would be particularly troubling in the case of internal genocide.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDocPerhaps the better question is it [b said:


> "wise"[/b] for Israel to pre-emptivel strike? That's got a decent two sides to it.


I'm not sure just wisdom covers it; that's more the 'in my nation's interest' upon which the arguments are interpreting short and long-term consequences and goals. It needs something more than just wisdom. 'Fairness' but that's just way to vague. So we use 'right', but not 'within their rights'.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Is it ok for Israel to preemptively strike?


I think I have answered that - but is it okay? No.
Could they afford the diplomatic hit? Yes

Would it be wise? At the moment yes if you want to enforce by proxy US wishes, but later when the "terrorists" have a little more free time (they have been busy in Iraq), Israel may pay the price.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

BeejiBoop - out cruising for hugs.









The accompanying BeejIcon







 catch those eyes.

Back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.............


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> BeejiBoop - out cruising for hugs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Still no hug? You do realize everything isn't a personal vendetta, right?

C'mon, I'm soft like a marshmallow. You may even like it. :love2:


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> but there's nothing wrong or 'neocon' about considering preemptive action against a sovereign nation.


I think that is either a bad choice of words... or you are plain wrong. I can understand the use of preemptive action in the case of a real present danger to your own sovereignty, but in the case we are discussing we are not talking about Iran threatening to harm the US directly.

Clearly Iran is not in line with US interests in the region, but that doesn't give the US cart blanche to bomb a sovereign country just because that country is in opposition to them.

Now if Iran was developing long range strategic nuclear capability (like North Korea is) perhaps the US would have a more valid claim for the use of preemptive force.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I think that is either a bad choice of words... or you are plain wrong. I can understand the use of preemptive action in the case of a real present danger to your own sovereignty, but in the case we are discussing we are not talking about Iran threatening to harm the US directly.
> 
> Clearly Iran is not in line with US interests in the region, but that doesn't give the US cart blanche to bomb a sovereign country just because that country is in opposition to them.
> 
> Now if Iran was developing long range strategic nuclear capability (like North Korea is) perhaps the US would have a more valid claim for the use of preemptive force.


Probably the wording. How about if Iran was developing nuclear capability to attack a harmless and openly democratic neighbour that couldn't defend themselves? I was trying to describe how 'never' seems inappropriate unless you get real specific in describing the circumstances.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Politics and government are two different things. Political parties are free to stand for what they want, including a religious agenda. The institutions of government should be neutral to religion. I think we have the correct balance in the West.


Ohhh yeah, I forgot to throw this one in there...

How soon we forget... President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

And from that Rolling Stones article...

_The wise men who counseled Bush's father, including James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, found their entreaties brusquely ignored by his son. When asked if he ever sought advice from the elder Bush, the president responded, "There is a higher Father that I appeal to."_

Oh yeah, there is no religion in the Executive Branch in Washington.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Probably the wording. How about if Iran was developing nuclear capability to attack a harmless and openly democratic neighbour that couldn't defend themselves? I was trying to describe how 'never' seems inappropriate unless you get real specific in describing the circumstances.


The issue here is that there needs to be some uniformity in the code of conduct of nations when it comes to defending other nations and populations. I kind of thought that would be a good job for the United Nations... But when you are the biggest kid on the block evidently you don't need to play by everyone else's rules.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The issue here is that there needs to be some uniformity in the code of conduct of nations when it comes to defending other nations and populations. I kind of thought that would be a good job for the United Nations... But when you are the biggest kid on the block evidently you don't need to play by everyone else's rules.


Exactly BUT if you're the biggest kid on the block and you SAY you want a peaceable neighbourhood......then you need to be SEEN to be playing by the agreed on rules.

My biggest argument with the US is not that it IS an empire and imperial in nature....it's that it CLAIMS not to be.

I may not like how an openly imperial power behaves but I can respect it.
Britain in the 19th century along with others were openly imperial in their foreign policies and did not proclaim otherwise nor pretend so.

Neither did Teddy Roosevelt.

It's the hypocrisy of paying lip service to respect for sovereignty and respect for the UN while acting otherwise that most dismays me and I think many Americans as well.....a growing number, thankfully.

Unilateral moves like that of the nuclear agreement with India in clear breach of the NPT and the ABM dismissal simply leaves the impression of rogue state where agreements with others are meaningless.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> How about if Iran was developing nuclear capability to attack a harmless and openly democratic neighbour that couldn't defend themselves?


Couple of questions.
Why does "openly democratic" matter here?

Sovereign non belligerent neighbor is all that matters - not the particular form of government in the attacked state. That reasons smacks of US thinking....."well it's Cuba, they're commies so it's "okay" to commit acts of war against them.
It's NOT okay. 

Sans UN agreements then the fall back is something akin to a NATO situation where there is a mutual defence pact.

The closest in the real world was East Timor and Indonesia or Bosnia and Kosovo and neither of those were "sovereign" neighbors at the time.

Kuwait clearly was despite Iraqi claims to the contrary.

The first Iraqi war was likely the best demonstration of a "world response" to a breach of sovereignty evinced by one nation invading another.

Too bad that could not have been built on. 

Bush II had a chance with Afghanistan to build on his father's coalition effort and sympathy by continuing to pursue Al Qaeda to it's conclusion after 9/11 and then gaining aid from others to rebuild the nation ala Acheson/Truman.

Iraq was an awful decision the world and the US will pay for for generations. It diverted the path from world effort, to that of power bloc and unilateral action.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Couple of questions.
> Why does "openly democratic" matter here?


Don't worry, I thought about adding 'filled with endangered species and cuddly bunnies' too, but decided enough was there for people to get the point. 

"....."well it's Cuba, they're commies so it's "okay" to commit acts of war against them.
It's NOT okay." 

But if they have agree to station USSR nukes on their island, then we're back into something similar to Israel-Iran. Specifics really matter; blanket statements, meh.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Iraq was an awful decision the world and the US will pay for for generations. It diverted the path from world effort, to that of power bloc and unilateral action.


Agreed. The U.S. and France really effed up. The U.S. moreso but I think if the kiddies were sent to play in a corner, Canada the UK and a couple others could have figured out something sensible.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

It's the old problem, though. Who's going to spank them? Don't seem to be many nations with the courage necessary to do it. Lucky for us we elected someone who will give a rim job while he's kissing up. Saves us from having to be courageous.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

- dem's harsh words Rev.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

RevMatt said:


> Who's going to spank them?


An Intelligent Designer?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Yeah, I was cranky earlier. Not so much now, but still cranky enough not to change the above.




Hrm. Maybe we have found an answer to this thread?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You SURE it's above?.....in MY WORLD..it's below.....all that relative stuff agin.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Fortunately for the ease of arguing, the fact of butt-kissing is accepted by all sides. There are arguments to be had about the relative worth of said butt kissing, but at least everyone agrees that that's what he is doing.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> It's the old problem, though. Who's going to spank them? Don't seem to be many nations with the courage necessary to do it. Lucky for us we elected someone who will give a rim job while he's kissing up. Saves us from having to be courageous.



Matt. Must you? 

(that's accompanied by a Look™. Over the glasses. )


----------

