From the Independent UK:
The New York Times has published allegations that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear warhead. The claims come less than two weeks before a decision by the UN nuclear watchdog on whether to report Tehran to the Security Council over its suspected weapons programme.
An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman dismissed the report as an attempt to step up pressure on Tehran before the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting on 24 November.
According to The New York Times, senior American intelligence officials had shown the IAEA experts computer simulations contained on what they described as a stolen Iranian laptop. The US officials said the data was the strongest evidence so far that Iran was trying to develop a compact warhead for its Shahab missile, but they would not say where the laptop came from.
Reached for comment, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid questioned the timing of this revelation, accusing both the New York Times and unnamed senior intelligence officials of exaggerating the information in order to distract from the Bush administration’s manipulation of pre-war Iraq intelligence, and to “make Iran’s nuclear program look like more of a threat than it really is.” Reid then called for a Senate investigation into what exactly Bush knew about this overblown non-threat—and more importantly, why the President hasn’t acted forcefully to stop it—before reminding reporters that Usama bin Laden is still at large, and that Dick Cheney once killed a family of ducklings with a pick-ax “just to watch them die horrific, fuzzy baby duck deaths.”
I once killed a six pack just to watch it die but ducklings? pickaxe? man that’s just mean.
TW: “account” the tab on Cheney’s account just went up.
Anyone else reminded of this Pink Floyd song: Several Species Of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together In A Cave And Grooving With A Pict
Must have been Judith Miller’s last WMD story for the NYT before she “retired.” Seems amazing that the NYT would even bother to publish the story referenced, after how badly they (pretend) that they were duped last time WMDs came up. Of course, the fact that they are pretending to be duped now on Iraq tells us a lot. Wonder of W will rise to the bait and go after Iran now? I mean, if the NYT says somebody’s trying to get nukes, then that’s pretty solid support, right?
The NYT will claim Iran has nukes unitl a non-terrorist supporting regime tries to stop Iran. Then the tune will change ever so dramatically.
how did he die, seargant?
–Ducklings.
Ducklings?
— Yessir, he was nuzzled to death by thousands upon thousands of 2 day old fuzzy yellow ducklings. Sir..it was… i can’t …
It’s alright son, nobody should have to see that their first month on the job. Hell, i was on a good year before i saw my first nuzzling and it damn near made me go back to the Arizona Taffy mines. But i stuck it out son, and you can too.
… Would you like a couple of Peeps?
:-D
tw: “Serious” as in i seriously need to stop writing while sober.
The secret to the media is to watch them out of the corner of your eye. Their bias only quiets down when they think you aren’t reading them.
In this particular case, they view it as kind of a wash – on one hand, Bush says Iran has nukes (so this helps him) – on the other, Iraq doesn’t (so Bush muffed Iraq WMD). Now if we were planning to ask for a UN resolution to invade Iran, then this would have not gotten the same coverage.
So like I say, don’t read them directly, just peek from the corner of your eye and you might just catch them telling the truth by accident.
TW: Type. ‘Nuff said.
Anyone else reminded of this Pink Floyd song: Several Species Of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together In A Cave And Grooving With A Pict
No, more the second side of Tubular Bells, where the Neandertal starts howling…
SB: carried
away
The New York Times has published allegations that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear warhead.
So?
Can you think of another country, other than Israel, that *needs* a nuclear deterrent nore than Iran? If Israel, Pakistan, India, the US and Russia have nukes, why shouldn’t Iran?
Well done, Phoenician! Especially considering the degree of difficulty.
Okay, in the next round,”Should North Korea be allowed to develop and build a nuclear weapons program?”
Now, don’t wear yourself out too much on this one, remember, we still have the “Why Shouldn’t the Chechnyan Mafia be allowed to have nuclear weapons?” round to go.
Sorry. I copied and pasted it just to prove to myself that I had actually read it. I was hoping maybe it was a hallucination or something.
I mean, no rational person could actually make such a statement, could they?
Because they’re the source for the Islamic fundamentalist revival during the 1970s-1980s, their leadership is often insane, and an avowed enemy of the US.
Too easy and simplistic, I know.
Don’t forget the super-duper trick question, should the Christian Taliban be allowed to develop its own arsenal [bunker busters for all!]?
Huh? Why the silence?
I think our Phoenician friend just forefitted any chance he or she had of being taken seriously by a grownup ever again.
Ahem. That should have been “forfeited.” I knew that looked wrong.
I’m still trying to figure out which Phoenicians PIATOR identifies with – the “Roman” reference seems to indicate the era of the Republic, so perhaps he/she favors Carthage pre-146 B.C.?
Or maybe he/she’s just really into Ba’al or Moloch worship? Seems like I recall that being a major Phoenician thing.
Maybe a Citizen Journalist should investigate Cheney’s so-called “blind trusts” to find out how many shares he holds in L.L.Bean and Land’s End, who are known corporatist procurers of goose down.
Sounds to me like those poor ducklings could have used some nook-leah-ur deterrance……or at least a couple of AK’s.
I’m too damn lazy to google this myself, so I’ll ask it here: what the hell is a “pict” anyway?
I mean, no rational person could actually make such a statement, could they?
See here.
I notice ad hominem. I don’t notice any argument *against* my statements.
Again: two questions:
i, Can you think of another country, other than Israel, that *needs* a nuclear deterrent nore than Iran?
ii, If Israel, Pakistan, India, the US and Russia have nukes, why shouldn’t Iran?
North Korea isn’t in Iran’s situation – it isn’t under threat of invasion or attack by nuclear armed neighbours. And, like it or not, for the most part Iran has been a rational actor recently.
PIATOR,
Am I correct in detecting a slight difference between saying a country “needs” a nuclear deterrent and a it would be ‘good’ or that you ‘want’ that country to have nuclear capability?
Here are a couple reasons, PIATOR.
Then there’s the statement by Iranian clerics that should they get a nuclear weapon, then intend to use it on Israel. Which would draw us into war, etc.
Other than that, though, I have no objections to arming the mullahs.
Let’s suppose I’m confronted by a raving, violent maniac waving a bloody axe on the street, and am carrying a firearm. Am I required to wait while the madman gets a similar weapon before I shoot him?
SB: students
inquiring minds
Here are a couple reasons, PIATOR.
Fine. Then here’s a reason for disarming the United States.
Let’s suppose I’m confronted by a raving, violent maniac waving a bloody axe on the street, and am carrying a firearm. Am I required to wait while the madman gets a similar weapon before I shoot him?
Please demonstrate that Iran acts as a “raving, violent maniac” on the world stage.
As best I can tell:
i, Iran postures against Israel, as do all the Arab countries. Big fat hairy deal.
ii, Iran is occupied largely with internal evolution, economic and political. The major point here is that the younger generation are far more liberal than those in power; inevitably, Iran will become more open – provided it isn’t given an external enemy to rally against.
iii, Iran is threatened by the Russians (and fallout from the ex-Soviet states), the Americans, the Israelis, fallout from Afghanistan and Iraq (especially with the Kurds) and possibly fallout from any Pakistan-Indian confict. Its primary response has been to seek deterrence through arms, seek closer ties with China, and to increase its influence among Muslims in the ex-Soviet states.
iv, It will be noted that it has *not* attempted to use oil as a weapon. It has attempted to mend fences with the Arab Gulf countries, and is trying to get something sorted with resolving claims on the Caspian sea fields (about the only country involved which is).
I repeat – Iran appears to be a rational state actor operating with a clear view of its own self-interest. It is surrounded by potential threats, and it needs to buy time to deal with its internal problems. Unlike Iraq, it isn’t going to invade its neighbours to rally the population.
Mmm – also see here:
“Conclusions Unlike countries driven by a sense of national survival, Iran has not launched a dedicated effort to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible at all costs. While most Iranians support the nuclear program as a matter of national pride and accomplishment, and deeply resent efforts by outside powers to deny Iran the benefits of modern technology, few Iranians openly profess a desire for nuclear weapons. Officially, Iran claims that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and that the enrichment program is only intended for fuel production. Privately, most Iranians make more sophisticated arguments, knowing that the ‘purely peaceful’ justification is not entirely plausible. Iran, they say, needs a latent nuclear weapons capability to stay afloat in a sea of nuclear states and to strengthen Iran’s bargaining position against more powerful countries, such as the United States, but they assure that Iran would never actually build nuclear weapons. Except for some hardliners, they say, Iranians are sophisticated enough to recognize that nuclear weapons would make Iran a target of international hostility, spur further proliferation in the region, and help America enhance its security presence in the region.
Finally, they say, Supreme Leader Khamene’i (like Ayatollah Khomeini before him) has ruled that nuclear weapons are contrary to Islam. Even if these arguments are genuine, however, the temptation for Iran’s leaders eventually to translate nuclear potential into reality could be difficult to resist once the option is available.
Iran’s nuclear option is not imminent. On purely technical grounds, Iran appears to be at least several years away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, and whether Iran has the expertise to fabricate a nuclear weapon from this material is unknown. This ‘worst case’ scenario assumes that Tehran blatantly reaches for nuclear weapons without regard for international reaction.
Up to now, however, Tehran has been more cautious. It has been prepared to accept delays and limits on its nuclear activities in the interests of dividing international opposition and avoiding confrontation. Rather than dash for a bomb, Iran may seek gradually to acquire a much more substantial nuclear production capability over a decade or more àfor example by completing a large-scale centrifuge plant for producing nuclear fuel àbefore it decides whether to exercise a weapons option. The challenge for international diplomacy in these circumstances is a delicate one. It will be important on the one hand to apply pressure and create inducements to persuade Iran not to develop a fuel cycle capability that it could later turn into a weapons program. On the other hand, it will be important to apply international diplomacy in a way that does not inspire Iran to abandon all restraint and seek a nuclear weapons capability without regard to the international repercussions. For its part, Iran must decide if mastery of the fuel cycle is worth the international isolation that in the current climate would no doubt result from its refusal to compromise on this point.”
I feel safer every day.
Mojo–
I would say it’s more reminiscent of Careful With That Axe, Eugene.
God, I’ve been wanting to use that song title in post for freaking years now. Thank you.
PIATOR,
Well, I don’t know if I would use ArabicNews as a primary source (or I might be forced to do something silly with NewsMax), but far as I can tell, the report that you cite from IISS doesn’t really seem to be doing anything to assuage anyone’s concerns.
Far as I can tell, it means that Iran has lied consistently and persistently about it’s nuclear weapons program.
As far as the behavior of a game-theoretic rational actor, to say that someone is not a rational actor, is simply to say that you do not think your opponent will act in his best interests as you percieve them. I must confess that I don’t see why some guy would blow him up in a pizza parlor, but that doesn’t mean that he’s not a game-theoretic rational actor in the eyes of many Palistinians, or for that matter, that he didn’t blow himself up. But then again, I don’t think most folks I consider to be game-theoretic rational to shout “Death to America” at the end of every weekly sermon for more than two decades.
So, I am not as confident in your assertion that Iran will not use or be responsible for the use of nuclear weapons because, according to someone or another, they think coherently.
But past all that, promalus liferation of nuclear weapons is malus en se – evil in of itself. It contributes to next generation proliferation problems, makes control of technologies much more difficult, and increases instabilities into deterrence and use structures – all very good recipies for ensuring the use of nuclear weapons in anger.
TW “making” – “And therefore making a complete mess of things.”
Witness the unbelievable doltishness of one of the left’s leading lights, PIATOR, here in the pixels, giving us the honor of her inimitable thinking.
Oh, yes, by all means, let’s give nuclear weapons to a country run by Islamofascists who have vowed “Death to America!” and who, as recently as a week ago called for Israelâ€â€our best, longest and strongest ally (and for about another month, the only democracy) in the Middle Eastâ€â€to be wiped out.
Let’s just have a little fun deconstructing this section of e-fish wrapper she has deposited on Jeff’s doorstep:
Privately, most [How do we know this –ed.]Iranians make more sophisticated arguments, knowing that the ‘purely peaceful’ justification is not entirely plausible.[Oh, it isn’t? Somebody tell Kofi Annan!] Iran, they say, needs a latent nuclear weapons capability [Sure. Let’s by all means develop the nuclear weapons so we won’t have to use them. Unless of course it’s for blackmail…] to stay afloat in a sea of nuclear states [Gawd what a metaphor!]and to strengthen Iran’s bargaining position[What did I just say about blackmail?]against more powerful countries, such as the United States, but they assure that Iran would never actually build nuclear weapons. Except for some hardliners[Wouldn’t this include the guys running the country, for example?], they say, Iranians are sophisticated enough to recognize that nuclear weapons would make Iran a target of international hostility, spur further proliferation in the region, and help America enhance its security presence in the region.Of course if that’s so…then why the hell are they doing it?
Well…..? Thought so.
PIATOR has a very good point. Iran started its nuke program years, probably in response to Iraq’s programs. Remember when Saddam was launching “city busters” (SCUDs) at Tehran? And used poison gases?
Well, if I was Iran then, I certainly would want a nuke program if only for deterrence. (Imagine if Iraq had held Kuwait and had all that extra income!)
Of course times have changed since then, and we have removed a major threat to their nation. Iran could agree to disarm now and reap a lot of benefits, and the only reason I can see it would want to keep nukes would be to attack Israel or the USA.
Pho, your essential claim seems to be that Iran has a viable claim to nuclear weapons because:
a)
ii: that’s not a logical answer given that the “older” generation may likely oppress any liberalism the “younger’ generation may express. Additionally, you provide no evidence that Iran will become more politically liberal, and given their history, none should reasonably be expected.
iii: Regardless of any perceived political threat, allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons must be weighed aginst the larger threat it might impose upon other nations. Given its political structure and history, the security of our and other nations outweighs the threats Iran’s use of nuclear weapons might impede. Also, you have not discussed the fact that they might well meet these threats by conventional means, obviating the need for nuclear capability.
i. and iv. are incoherent, and so, will not be addresses here.
See also,<a href=”http://this argument.” target=”_blank”>http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/ahmadinejad.reaction/</a>
PIATOR lost all her credibility with that Reagan link. If she actually thinks that Reagan—joking—that Russia would be destroyed is equivalent to Ahmadinejad repeatedly calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, even speaking of the specific strategy for destroying not only Israel but breaking the back of the USA, then she is completely unserious about the issue.
Except for in a “boy, I’m sure morally superior, because I really make you question whether we’re right to be who we are” way. Which, you know. Got old about junior year of college.
for the most part Iran has been a rational actor recently
Gee, someone ought to donate some “real” texts to those wingbat caves. After reading an article in Frontpage recently, I would say that the government of Iran has gone totally loony.
But have you guys seen all the security they got on the friggin’ Queen, now? How in the hell is Allah’s will to be done if they can’t nuke Buckingham Palace.
By the way, how did the Phoenicians do back there, you know, in the time of Romans? As I recall they just kinda faded away, so at least you are honest in taking a self-defeating handle.
Is it an ad hominem – or should that read *ad hominem* – argument to suggest that someone who has made a statement that, on the face of it is profoundly irrational, is, in fact, not rational?
More particularly if, by their subsequent statements, they reinforce that original impression?
Ad hominem? I’d call it a diagnosis.
Let’s not forget the idea that a Persian bomb might encourage Arab envy and an ensuing arms race involving the Saudis, Egypt or Syria.
I don’t see Ahmadinejad as particularly rational in his issuing death threats to Israel. This is roughly equivalent to Castro, who in 1995 admitted that he told Kruschev to use the Cuban missles against the U.S., which as we understand would have brought about the destruction of Cuba.
In Ahmadinejad’s supposedly rational mind, what outcome does he expect when simultaneosly reaching for nuclear capability and speaking very clearly about it’s intended use?
It may be worth reviewing his speech for clues to his state of mind…
“Art reaches perfection when it portrays the best life and best death. After all, art tells you how to live. That is the essence of art. Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity. Those who wish to undermine this principle undermine the foundations of our independence and national security. They undermine the foundation of our eternity.
“The message of the [Islamic] Revolution is global, and is not restricted to a specific place or time. It is a human message, and it will move forward.
“Have no doubt… Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.”
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP94505
Actually, “Phoenician in a Time of Romans” has given us an important insight.
Phoenicians worship bulls. That makes bullshit a sacramental substance, to be spread liberally on every possible occasion.
Regards,
Ric
Iran isn’t under threat of invasion or attack by any of its neighbors, nuclear-armed or not. Unless of course they continue trying to develop nuclear arms and/or being state sponsors of terrorism. Their non-nuclear armed neighbors fear them obtaining such weapons.
I do not stipulate that N Korea is in a different situation. Their situations are almost exactly the same.
I can think of several countries besides Israel which need nukes more than Iran. Let’s just look at PIATOR’s reasons:
“Iran is threatened by the Russians”
Puh-lease. All Eastern European and ex-Soviet states are in more danger.
“and fallout from the ex-Soviet states”
Russia is in more danger. Good thing they already have nukes!
“the Americans”
North Korea is probably in more danger. Gotta thank Carter that they have nukes!
Maybe France also.
“the Israelis”
All Arab countries (except maybe the really insignificant ones) are gonna need nukes.
“fallout from Afghanistan and Iraq”
Wouldn’t Afghanistan and Iraq need nukes to prevent the “fallout”?
“especially with the Kurds”
Turkey has more problems. Nothing a little plutonium wouldn’t solve.
“and possibly fallout from any Pakistan-Indian confict.”
(Say, what is it with this “fallout” thing?)
Nukes for Bangladesh. And I guess Nepal, Bhutan and Thailand. Sri Lanka too, I guess. Of course, China already has ‘em. And of course, Pakistan and India.
maor,
If we are talking ‘fallout’ from Iraq and Afghanistan, we’d better be fair and allow Syria nukes.
And if you give Syria nukes, Lebanon is going to want them,too.
If you give a moose a muffin, you know….
Don’t forget Iran is a state sponsor of terror and would, quite likely, pass out nukes like Pez.
Or the fact that Ahmenijad just recalled all of his “moderate” ambassadors.
I want to thank PIATOR for saying openly, on a “conservative” blog, what I KNOW the far left extremists have been saying on their blogs and at their cocktail parties for YEARS.
Nutso crap that folks with even a tiny modicum of self-awareness and political savvy wouldn’t want ordinary folks to know they actually believe.
That, and I can stop taking PIATOR even half-seriously anymore. I mean…wow. There are no levels of self-abasement and supine impotence to which the Left will not take this country in the face of its avowed enemies. None.
Classified sources have revealed that the code name for the warhead project is “Israeli Squeegee”.
BECAUSE OF THE MORAL EQUIVALENCE!
I’d trust Tara Reid with a nuclear weapon before I’d trust Iran. But that’s just me.
MayBee,
We already had to give Syria and Lebanon nukes because of Israel!
Of course, by PIATOR’s logic we have to give nukes to every country with tense relations with another country and every country close enough to be affected by potential “fallout”, but she didn’t state that as clearly so I didn’t want to go there.
And I have no idea what happens when you give a moose a muffin. He eats it?
Now that you’ve enjoyed the rather more casual posters obliterating your “statements” with one eye shut, will you try posting something actually befitting debate?
I’m quite serious. The more I read, the more I too feel you’re still wet behind the ears from some first year experience in one of our more, shall we say, institutionalized schools of higher learning.
tw: Hot. Turn up the heat, PIATOR.
Does this mean the Birkenstockers aren’t disarming the globe after all?
Oh, right then. Got it. Good thing we’re all over those tense relations. They were so 9/11.
(Whaddya mean, Leftists are argumentatively schizophrenic?
BECAUSE OF MCBUSHCHIMPYHITLER!)
tw: Europe. Yeah, Europe.
I’m pretty sure PIATOR isn’t a United States citizen, in view of a comment on the previous post in which s/he speaks of Americans in the second person in bemoaning that you didn’t listen to the kindly warnings of the wise and noble French.
So which is it? “Disarm the world†or “Arm the world� Get your liberal mantra straight.
This isn’t midget league T-ball where everyone gets a turn. With each new country becoming nuclear, the world threat increases. I don’t care if the Welsh break away from the UK and decide to start a nuclear program. “They seem nice enough†is not a valid excuse to allow them to nuke-up. That said even if the rebel state of Scotland secretly becomes nuclear capable.
World safety does not increase with each nuke that rolls off of the assemble line. Just like in a nightclub, the likelihood of a brawl increases with the number of patrons.
I know plenty of Americans that do this. It’s called being a global citizen. Or something.
Right, the Democrats will defend Iran’s right to nuke until Iran wipes Israel off the face of the planet after which directing the other Nuke at the Euro Heads of Stupidity, only then will the Democrats scream loudly..how could the Republicans have let this happen!
BECAUSE OF THE NUCLEAR META-BIGOTRY!!!
Well, here we have it, then.
What you so blithely call “posturing,” the rest of us call “declarations of their intentions.”
We are simply taking them at their word. They say “we are a threat to Israel.” They say this loudly and repeatedly.
We say, “I see.” And act accordingly.
When the man wielding the pick axe takes up a bomb, he is no longer “posturing.” The very fact that Iran would obtain nukes transforms their declarations from hollow ranting to bona fide threat.
I should think that was obvious.
Unless, of course, you agree with the goal of obliterating Israel. If so, you should just come out and say it. You’ve shown such candor up to now.
I believe the left’s consistent position can be stated thus:
“The US should disarm, as it is a threat to everyone in the world. Other nations should not be limited in their pursuit of weapons, because of the threat posed by the US.”
If you push them on it, they’ll claim that if the US unilaterally disarmed, then other nations would disarm.
This view is impervious to reason and historical example.
Oh, come on! You know leftists don’t take the statements of Third Worlders as meaningful. That would be admitting they’re fully human and capable of independent action.
ii, Iran is occupied largely with internal evolution, economic and political. The major point here is that the younger generation are far more liberal than those in power; inevitably, Iran will become more open – provided it isn’t given an external enemy to rally against.
It would be nice to believe that Iran simply wants (or rather, the conservative cleric leaders of Iran simply want) to be left alone, that the leaders of Iran have no interest in war unless somehow provoked, and that an Iran which is secure in itself will then occupy itself only with its own internal affairs, progressing slowly but surely through economic development and the corresponding expansion of an enlightened middle class towards greater openness and liberalism.
It would also be nice to believe that the leaders and clerics of Iran do not actually believe their own words when they talk about obliterating Israel from the map–and that their extremist posture and religious orthodoxy are both dependent on the active antagonism of the outside world for their survival.
But this would require us to subscribe to the weird idea that any country ‘left to itself’ will of its own accord proceed organically towards enlightenment (an idea which also, peculiarly, conceives of non-western countries as organic, biological systems and western countries as the only entities with the free will to disturb this natural progress, like a scientist disturbing a culture in a petri dish) and that this country will, if not ‘provoked’, have no reason to do some ‘provoking’ of its own. Not to mention the equally improbable idea that any country can truly isolate itself from outside influence in this age.
Orthodoxy and fundamentalism and extremism in religion are ‘provoked’ by the outside world–but not simply or even primarily by material threats of poverty and inequality and threats of war, which a liberal secular westerner already conceives of as ills which need addressing–they are ‘provoked’ by the very progress which the progressive liberalizing society naturally creates: equality between the sexes, sexual freedom and even libertinism, class mobility, mass-produced goods and widely available material comforts. This is true whether we are talking about Islamic extremism (a phenomenon which is very much of this century, and gives the lie to ideas of strict linear progress–parts of Islamic society have been, in the past, highly secularized and liberalized) or Appalachian snake-handling (a practice which only arose at the beginning of the last century, in reaction to the intrusion of the industrialized modern world into once isolated communities).
Modernization is not something Iran can protect itself from by going nuclear. And the liberalizing class within Iran is precisely what is most likely to ‘provoke’ the conservative clerics to ever greater lengths of extremism (much as Nazism followed hard on the heels of artistic, socialist Weimar Germany) and even to attacking its neighbors or Israel in a misguided attempt at national unity the closer these elements come to actually threatening the power of the mullahs and, indeed, the religious convictions of the mullahs. Iran is a long way from a stable glide to democracy (and invulnerable nuclear isolation is hardly likely to bring one about–you may notice that Rose Revolutions have only occurred in relatively small and powerless countries which are under heavy external pressure from larger and more powerful countries not to violently suppress them)–and it should not be given the power to displace the inevitable internal violence of its modernization onto the rest of the world.
Abso-freakin’-lutely. They have made this claim, most infamously Michael Moore in Dude, Where’s My Country and numerous public statements. And the Left has not been evasive, or cute, or given any indication that they don’t believe this to be true.
Which again returns us to my question from earlier – how could a rational person believe such things?
Okay, we’ve got the start of something.
Top 10 people or groups that should posses nuclear weapons before Iran.
1. Tara Reid
2. Appalachian Snake Handlers
….little help here?
I’d add Slim Whitman (if he’s still alive) and the entire cast of Friends.
Heck, even Carson Daly should have nukes before the Mullahs.
3. J. Lo’s Butt?
If we give Jennifer Anniston a nuke, where going to have to give Angolina Jolie one too, (because of all the fallout)
4. A gin-soaked ‘dillo.
My doctor said PIATOR works similar to VIAGRA, but requires a lot more hand motion.
It might be fun to watch Dennis Rodman with a nuke. From a distance.
Hey Phoenecian,
I have a question for you. If a corporation, like Exxon or Phillip Morris or some other multinational, had somehow managed to take over Iran in the ‘70s and had been ruling the country undemocratically for 30 years, would you still claim that any quest they made for nuclear weapons would be legitimate?
Yours/
peter.
5. Unusually pungent bleu cheese / the duck from the Aflack commercial
6. Robert Downey, Jr. (pre-incarceration even)
7) Each of the 66 victims of the Iran hostage crisis.
Russia is singularly responsible for aiding Iran in their nuclear program and is one of Iran’s favorite countries.
Iran could get rid of any threats from the US and Israel if they’d simply quit murdering our citizens by funding terror. Hezbollah couldn’t exist without the $80 Million a year Iran gives them. It would also help if they’d quit supporting the insurgency in Iraq and cut their ties to al Qaeda. They seem like real rational actors between that and the way they ruthlessly oppress their own people.
They don’t seem worried enough about Iraq or Afghanistan to quit trying to destabilize Iraq or harboring al Qaeda affiliates and the problems in Kashmir have never affected Iran before so there’s no reason to think it would now.
Piator’s Iran comments just may be the dumbest thing ever put into print. That freaking Wadard guy looks like a Middle East authority by comparison.
If you give a moose a muffin, he’ll want some of your mother’s blackberry jam to go with it. If you are out of the jam, he gores you with his horns and tramples your corpse…wasn’t that how the rest of the story went?
If you give a mullah a nuke, you had better reach for the lead suit.
This is what the mullahs would do to a MOOSE
8.) France
What’s that? France is ALREADY a nuclear power? Wow, who’d a guessed it. I guess a nuke isn’t a very good defense against an Algerian cabbie with a molotov cocktail.
TW – western
WESTERN culture may be oppressive to the middle east, but the alternative is horror beyond your imagination.
9.) TIE: Every country on this list with the exception of North Korea.
Russ,
A Pict would be one of the early inhabitants of Sctoland. It is unclear whether they were Celts or even earlier migrants to Britain. They were a ferocious warrior society who painted themselves blue before battle. The Roman’s called them Picti, or the Painted Ones. They probably didn’t call themselves Picts, more likely they referred to themselves by their various tribal names.
The song is from Umma Gumma. Not a bad album, but I prefer Meddle.
Hey, that’s the ticket, let’s give the Picts the bomb!
Now that Judith Miller is gone, who will the NY Times blame this one on four years from now?
10. Great, now you’ve just armed Carmen Electra. How is it Hollywood always ends up with all the nukes? Keep that up and next thing you know, Wyoming or Kansas or somewhare will have to have ‘em too.
tw: Car. In the back seat.
11. TIE: Mrs. Garrison from South Park/Mrs. Garrison from the Facts of Life.
You take the good/You take the bad/You take ‘em both/And there you have/The FACTS of LIFE
David Brent, maybe?
Or Dawn.
But not Gareth. No, no way, not Gareth.
12. Fred Phelps
Thanks for the tip on the Picts. I was thinking it was some tribe from the British Isles, but I couldn’t remember the specifics. Meddle was a great album, Umma Gumma was strictly take it or leave it, Atom Heart Mother was good…..but I’ve always been a sucker for Wish You Were Here.
13. Jeff Gannon. THE MIGHTY 80 MEGATON GAY PORN COCKBOMB OF DEATH!
Many, probably most, of these are chemical engineers or technicians rather than chemists per se. ,