Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Iran: 3,000 centrifuges up and running
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Of course this won't be considered "saber rattling" by the loyal opposition:
"We have now reached 3,000 machines," Ahmadinejad told thousands of Iranians gathered in Birjand, in eastern Iran, in a show of defiance of international demands to halt the program believed to be masking the country's nuclear arms efforts.

Ahmadinejad has in the past claimed that Iran succeeded in installing the 3,000 centrifuges at its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. But Wednesday's claim was his first official statement that the plant is now fully operating all those centrifuges.

When Iran first announced launching the 3,000 centrifuges in April, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Tehran had only 328 centrifuges up and running at Natanz's underground facility.

In a recent report, drawn up by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the agency put the number of centrifuges working in Natanz at close to 2,000, with another 650 being tested.
You know, given his past, I trust IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei about as far as I could throw him.
U.S. experts say 3,000 centrifuges are in theory enough to produce a nuclear weapon, perhaps as soon as within a year.

Iran says it plans to expand its enrichment program to up to 54,000 centrifuges at Natanz in central Iran — which would amount to the level of industrial-scale uranium enrichment.
Naturally that is far and away more than they'd ever need for peaceful nuclear power.
"I, as your representative, told those who brought the message that we didn't ask for talks ... If talks are to be held, it is the Iranian nation that has to set conditions, not the arrogant and the criminals," Ahmadinejad said.

"The world must know that this nation will not give up one iota of its nuclear rights ... if they think they can get concessions from this nation, they are badly mistaken," he concluded.
Yup, no saber rattling there. Move along. Nothing to see here.

More here.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
ffs, NOW can we bomb them???
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
enter Erb and DS.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
You know, given his past, I trust IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei about as far as I could throw him.

His past of being accurate? His past of thinking that US military interventions aren’t always the greatest idea in the world? Or what? Care to try a little specificity?
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Yeah, I was also going to note that if you’re gonna go with the odds the IAEA has a much better recent track record than the right does.
 
Written By: Oliver Willis
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
Fear not, I have it on good authority that the Iranian moderates are actually in charge. You do remember, don’t you, the ones who were intimidated by the British into returning, posthaste, those captured British servicemen. They even gave them gifts as a sign of their remorse.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
the IAEA has a much better recent track record than the right does
The IAEA missed Saddam’s nuclear program before the 1991 Gulf War.

They missed Libya’s nuclear program before the 2003 Gulf War.

They missed Pakistan’s nuclear "supermarket".

Perhaps you can tell us of a few successes?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty does not ban uranium enrichment. These centrifuges are not a violation of Iran’s treaty obligations. And if they were, Iran could always just withdraw from the treaty. Maybe enrichment in the entire absence of a reactor requirng enriched fuel should be banned, but certain people break out in hives and start jabbering about black helicopters whenever giving international institutions greater authority is mooted.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Yeah, Retief, the treaty is the important thing here. Who care if nutcase radical Islamics get the bomb, it’s the treaty that matters.

And yeah, those international institutions have been sooooo useful.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
You know, given his past, I trust IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei about as far as I could throw him.

Hmmm, I’m intrigued. Would a demonstration be possible?
 
Written By: Veeshir
URL: http://
Of course, complaints coming from a country armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons seems to present a bit of a double standard, especially when we’ve demonstrated an actively aggressive foreign policy in recent years. Funny how people can’t seem to get outside their own perspective and think about how things look to people viewing the situation from a different perspective.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
These centrifuges are not a violation of Iran’s treaty obligations.
The IAEA has repeatedly criticized Iran for violating the treaty based on Iran’s secrecy and failure to follow safety protocols.
Funny how people can’t seem to get outside their own perspective and think about how things look to people viewing the situation from a different perspective.
So we have it on record that Erb opposes the NPT treaty.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
The NPT treaty is voluntary and states can leave. If Iran really wants to build nuclear weapons, they should leave the treaty.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I fear seeing what will truly be an actively aggressive foreign policy within the next five years if the right pre-emptive moves aren’t taken soon.
 
Written By: Arcs
URL: http://
If Iran really wants to build nuclear weapons, they should leave the treaty.
Sophistry. What if Iran builds nuclear weapons and stays in the treaty anyway? What would stop them?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Of course, complaints coming from a country armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons seems to present a bit of a double standard, especially when we’ve demonstrated an actively aggressive foreign policy in recent years. Funny how people can’t seem to get outside their own perspective and think about how things look to people viewing the situation from a different perspective.

Poppycock and moral equivalence.

There is no comparison between any US administration since we obtained atomic weaponry, and Iran’s current administration.
Demonstrate ONE serious instance of a US President saying something like ’Israel should cease to exist’ and for the sake of discussion, advocating regime change or calling someone ’evil’ is not the same as proposing annihilation, so don’t even bother to reply in any way along those lines.

Iran is currently being run by adult sized children.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
If Iran really wants to build nuclear weapons, they should leave the treaty.
Again, Erb does not support the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Interesting position.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"Interesting position."

Historically consistent. The Hitler/Stalin pact was cool with lefties, too.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
"we’ve demonstrated an actively aggressive foreign policy in recent years"

Recent years? I thought it was since forever, due to our Western whiteness and Europeanness.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Recent years? I thought it was since forever, due to our Western whiteness and Europeanness.
Aren’t you forgetting our racismness? Or is that implied in whiteness and Europeanness?
Of course, complaints coming from a country armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons seems to present a bit of a double standard
And do you remember why we built that stockpile, professor? To protect ourselves from another country "armed to the teeth" with nuclear weapons. Which country is STILL "armed to the teeth" with them. And to protect ourselves from the Chinese, who are currently armed to the liver and moving towards the pancreas.
Funny how people can’t seem to get outside their own perspective and think about how things look to people viewing the situation from a different perspective.


We ARE looking at it from a different perspective, dumb@ss! We’re looking at it from the perspective of a ratsh!t crazy Muslim mullocracy who celebrate the holiday of when they kidnapped our citizens and diplomats by running through the streets stomping and burning our flag and chanting "Death to America!!!" And whose president has stated their desire to wipe Israel off the map.

Or do you mean look at it from your perspective: that of a totally naive and ignorant @sshat who thinks that protecting our national interests is an "actively aggressive foreign policy."
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Or do you mean look at it from your perspective: that of a totally naive and ignorant @sshat who thinks that protecting our national interests is an "actively aggressive foreign policy."
Yes, that’s what he means.

Didn’t you enjoy their little embassy celebration the other day?
It would be sort of like us celebrating locking up the Nisei in 1941/42.
I guess we just have to look at it from the right perspective, surely there’s a bizarre one out there that would work.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Of course, complaints coming from a country armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons seems to present a bit of a double standard, especially when we’ve demonstrated an actively aggressive foreign policy in recent years. Funny how people can’t seem to get outside their own perspective and think about how things look to people viewing the situation from a different perspective.
One precident was England and its desire to maintain naval superiority. And in fact, it was in both England’s and the world’s best interests that England remain superior to the likes of France, Germany, and Spain.

I understand where you are coming from, Scott, but you are wrong because not everyone’s moral bearing is equal, and in the reality of a world where force is often the deciding factor, it is best when the good guys maintain the military advantage, even if it isn’t "fair" and even if some people have issues with this lack of "fairness".
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I understand where you are coming from, Scott, but you are wrong because not everyone’s moral bearing is equal, and in the reality of a world where force is often the deciding factor, it is best when the good guys maintain the military advantage, even if it isn’t "fair" and even if some people have issues with this lack of "fairness".


That’s the problem, Don. From everything of Erb’s that I’ve read, I get the distinct impression that he doesn’t believe that WE are the good guys. Or that even now, there are people plotting to kill Americans. And any Americans will do.

He’s as naive as Howard Dean’s brother, rafting down the Mekong into Laos during wartime. "Mellow! If we run into any communists, I’ll just tell them that I was like, against the war, man. We’ll probably smoke a bowl together and talk about what a baby-killer Nixon is."
It would be sort of like us celebrating locking up the Nisei in 1941/42.
Well, I don’t celebrate it, but Norman Mineta’s baseball bat IS a family heirloom.



 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
The IAEA missed Saddam’s nuclear program before the 1991 Gulf War.

They missed Libya’s nuclear program before the 2003 Gulf War.

They missed Pakistan’s nuclear "supermarket".
I forgot to add the IAEA missed the Syrian nuclear program as well.

What a great record, right Oliver?!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Syria? What are you talking about? All they have is an Israeli built parking lot.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
There is no comparison between any US administration since we obtained atomic weaponry, and Iran’s current administration.
Demonstrate ONE serious instance of a US President saying something like ’Israel should cease to exist’ and for the sake of discussion, advocating regime change or calling someone ’evil’ is not the same as proposing annihilation, so don’t even bother to reply in any way along those lines.

Iran is currently being run by adult sized children.
Really? Which countries has Iran invaded on the thinest of pretexts in th last decade?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
The discussion, is about nuclear weapons, who has them, who doesn’t and who shouldn’t.

The comment was in reference to a comment about nuclear weapons.

See if you can keep up, okay Mr "it’s okay if Iran has nukes" science fiction character.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The intelligence failure in Iraq doesn’t mean we have an intelligence failure in Iran. Dissident Iranians alerted the world to hidden nuclear facilities in Iran that they had not announced to the IAEA. Why would they want to have hidden facilities?

"In August 2002, a group of Iranian dissidents made a startling announcement at a press conference in Washington, D.C.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, the representative of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, told the world that the Iranian government had a secret nuclear program and was building two facilities south of Tehran in central Iran that would be capable of producing material that could fuel a nuclear weapon.

The U.S. State Department said that Jafarzadeh’s group was a part of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), which killed U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and supported the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran but was expelled after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. After that, the dissidents waged a worldwide campaign to topple the Iranian government and replace it with a secular regime.

Despite questions about the source of the information, the dissidents’ claim that Iran had a covert nuclear program proved to be true. The hidden sites — a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz and a heavy-water plant in Arak — were later confirmed by a U.N. monitoring group and the Iranian government, though the Iranians insisted that they were intended only to generate peaceful nuclear energy."

Source is from PBS, that vile nest of neocons.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Copperheads. Why is anyone surprised by the hissing from Erb, O-Dub, etc?

Wonder if Erb’s planning to offer extra credit for flag burning too?
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
I understand where you are coming from, Scott, but you are wrong because not everyone’s moral bearing is equal, and in the reality of a world where force is often the deciding factor, it is best when the good guys maintain the military advantage, even if it isn’t "fair" and even if some people have issues with this lack of "fairness".
Not everyone’s moral bearing is equal, but everyone thinks they are morally right. If the shoe was on the other foot, and a power hostile to the US had massive nuclear weaponry and tried to dominate the American continent with its ability to project force, then we’d of course be doing all that we could to try to undercut that country’s power.

The thing is, America is in decline at this point. Our military power is of limited value, the dollar is falling like a rock (I never thought Canadians would be getting something like $1.10 for every Canadian dollar), and Iran is strategically located on the Persian gulf and straights of Hormuz, as oil (which as the President notes, we’re addicted to) reaches $100 a barrel. In Iraq our ’cake walk’ has turned into a quagmire, and efforts to truly alter the strategic balance of the region have failed. To try to bomb Iran to "keep advantage" in nuclear weaponry not only isn’t necessary, but could hurt us far more than advantage us.

Thus we’ve worked ourselves into a corner. Iran is calling our bluff because they know they could harm us severely if we bombed them, and for all we know, they don’t have what they claim to have, or its located in different locations than they state. A US attack might be what the hardliners want, so it rationalizes their grip on power; they clearly know that the US can’t invade and conquer — and they also understand that a reaction to being attacked will be to generate support for the government.

Seriously: we are seeing the US increasingly operating from a position of geopolitical weakness, with few effective options, save taking a spoonful of humility and focusing on diplomacy and compromise. After all, it’s not like Iran has the capacity to invade and conquer us, and they are smart enough to know Israel would wipe them out if they really tried to attack them. They want to be a regional power and have more influence, and it really isn’t likely that there is much to stop them. Perhaps it’s time to really use diplomacy — force isn’t a good option at this point. Threats aren’t working because our threats are not truly credible.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The intelligence failure in Iraq doesn’t mean we have an intelligence failure in Iran. Dissident Iranians alerted the world to hidden nuclear facilities in Iran that they had not announced to the IAEA. Why would they want to have hidden facilities?
Dissidents are the least credible source for intelligence. Sometimes they are right, but you can’t conclude that you should believe everything they say. And the failings in Iraq do suggest that we can’t unquestionably accept intelligence claims — especially when the IAEA disagrees.

But let’s assume Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Further, let’s envision a day when they decide to leave the NPT. What then? Do we go to war to stop them from joining Pakistan, India, Israel, the US, Russia, UK, France, and China in the nuclear club? What would the costs of that be, and what other options exist?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Or do you mean look at it from your perspective: that of a totally naive and ignorant @sshat who thinks that protecting our national interests is an "actively aggressive foreign policy."
You seem to have a view of ’national interest’ that is much like that of Germany in 1939.

And Iran’s goverenment has had a rational — if Machiavellian — foreign policy for decades. To berate them as ’rats**t crazy mullahs’ betrays you as not really thinking about this, but instead going from some kind of talk radio like propaganda to make yourself feel superior and powerful.

Bottom line: You really don’t understand what’s at stake, what’s happening, and how dangerous this game is. You’re locked into this cute little world of them ’crazy Muslims’ and us ’rational westerners’ where of course it’s necessary and makes sense to do whatever possible to defeat them. You’ve bought into a simplistic set of propagandistic claims that are as bad as the ones that said Saddam had WMD, we’d be greeted in Iraq as liberators, oil revenues would pay for the war and reconstruction, and we’d have a model Iraq that would quickly spread to the west of the Mideast and alter the strategic balance in our favor.

You are not dealing with reality. You’re locked in a political story that may make you feel good, but really leads someplace very dangerous.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Dissidents are the least credible source for intelligence."

Did you read the rest of the quote, you know, the part where it says that their claims were proved by the UN and the government of Iran admitted to the facilities?

As for policy prescriptions, I pretty much think we are doing the correct thing - sanctions, pressure, EU-3 negotiations, etc. If the leftists and media were to show a united front, you know, it might help us in negotiations. Instead the regime knows they can exploit our loyal opposition easily.

However, the risk of more and more proliferation in the region, like a cascade is very alarming even you only consider the risk of accidental war.

I guess that will be no big deal when the libs are in power, and everyone in the world stops this hatred and war nonsense.

p.s. Explain how bombing the Jewish center in Argentina is "rational." While I agree that parts of the Iranian regime are "rational" it’s the groups like the revolutionary guard that make me queasy.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Power reactors, not test reactors, utilize about 5% enrichment vrs 93.5% for weapon grade material. Anyway, the problem with developing a nuclear power program from scratch is the system designs and most important is the fuel rod design and metallurgy; the metallurgical problems plagued the power industry for some time. Why would one want to go through that when designs exist from multiple sources that are not American? Russia is building one in Iran now. So with their economy coming apart, why would they spend all of that money on developing a independent nuclear power plant program? National pride? Maybe, but I for one doubt it. If it was peaceful, they could easily show their system designs for their facilities as GE, Westinghouse and CE did in the past and the corporations pushing the pebble reactor designs are doing now. There should be, in my opinion, no one in the West accepting their explanations.

Now what do we, the West, do before the Mad Mullahs unleash the Islamic bomb. To do nothing may make WWII look like a minor war in comparison if looking at total deaths. We are following the same path as was done in 1939. But the West is noted for failing to act preemptively. As Winston Churchill said:

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

I wonder what a nuclear war will do to the global warming problem. Ah yes, the memory serves up the nuclear winter scenario from the bad old cold war days. We just may find out if that would happen in short order.
 
Written By: AMR
URL: http://
Now what do we, the West, do before the Mad Mullahs unleash the Islamic bomb.
Oh, given Israel has hundreds of bombs, and the West thousands, I don’t think we have much to worry about. As much as you want to pretend that these are ’mad mullahs’ they aren’t irrational, they are quite a ways away from getting the bomb (except Pakistan, of course) and aren’t likely to have many. They want more regional influence. Maybe they’ll even find it in their interest to move away from risky strategies like supporting Hezbollah to leverage their power if having a bomb is enough. Hezbollah has a mind of its own; bombs don’t.

IOW: don’t over-react. And if we can develop alternatives to oil dependency, then we can wash our hands of that part of the world and let it develop at its own pace and scope.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Seriously: we are seeing the US increasingly operating from a position of geopolitical weakness, with few effective options, save taking a spoonful of humility and focusing on diplomacy and compromise.
A man tries to rob you. He has a knife. You have a concealed gun. You can tell him to get lost. You can give him what he demands and hope that will be enough and risk that he will attack you anyway. You can take a spoonful of humility and focus on diplomacy and compromise. You can show him your gun and tell him he picked on the wrong person.

This "geopolitical weakness" you talk about isn’t that the US can’t do anything about Iran but rather that we really, really don’t want to. For all the loony talk about Bush rushing to another war, he’s had a dozen excuses to do it already.

When you take about "few effective options" it’s really just a desire to avoid having to take the only likely effective option to stop Iran, military force.

Seriously, the single justification I can think of a Hillary presidency is that like Operation Desert Fox and the Bosnia intervention, if Hillary bombs Iran the great majority of the Left will praise it and justify it rather than rehash all the stale tired nonsense they’ve been repeating the last six years.
 
Written By: abw
URL: http://abw.mee.nu
and aren’t likely to have many.
It only takes one to turn Tel Aviv or Jerusalem into a glowing crater.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
You seem to have a view of ’national interest’ that is much like that of Germany in 1939.
Nice job, Erb. You’ve just proved Godwin’s Law. Or did I say something that led you to believe I think signing a non-aggression pact with Russia and invading Poland is in our national interest? I am underwhelmed with your debating prowess.
And Iran’s goverenment has had a rational — if Machiavellian — foreign policy for decades.
They sure did. And then Jimmy Carter sold out the Shah. Do you grok White Revolution?
To berate them as ’rats**t crazy mullahs’ betrays you as not really thinking about this, but instead going from some kind of talk radio like propaganda to make yourself feel superior and powerful.
Guess what, genius? I AM superior and powerful. Khomeini, Khameini, Ahmadeinijad - that may be YOUR intellectual and mentally rational equals, but they are NOT mine.
Bottom line: You really don’t understand what’s at stake, what’s happening, and how dangerous this game is. You’re locked into this cute little world of them ’crazy Muslims’ and us ’rational westerners’ where of course it’s necessary and makes sense to do whatever possible to defeat them.
Quit projecting from your ivory tower. Unlike you, I have been all over the world. I have lived in foreign countries. I don’t even own a coat with patches on the elbows. Those Muslims ARE crazy. And I’m only speaking for myself. I certainly don’t think YOU are rational.
You’ve bought into a simplistic set of propagandistic claims


Yes, life would be so much easier if I bought into your simplistic set of claims, instead. Unfortunately, I’ve seen firsthand how the world works. Especially the third world. Power does not flow from pens, it flows from the barrel of a gun. You should be thankful that we have the most and biggest guns, and that occasionally, we are willing to use them.
You are not dealing with reality. You’re locked in a political story that may make you feel good, but really leads someplace very dangerous.


WTF would you know about danger or reality, Erb? Not much:
IOW: don’t over-react. And if we can develop alternatives to oil dependency, then we can wash our hands of that part of the world and let it develop at its own pace and scope.
Yes, and as soon as the cars that run on hemp and body odor roll off the assembly line, I’ll sign up for your Poli Sci course. And I’m sure that causing the economic ruin of countries full of young Muslims bred on hatred of all that is not Islam won’t have any repercussions at all.

Where the hell did this guy come from?

 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://repatriate.blogspot.com
In the interest of full disclosure, Erb - I have four children, all of whom are blond-haired and blue-eyed. And I have on occasion introduced them as "Our Master Race." So maybe you were on to something there, at the beginning.

The rest is still twaddle.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://repatriate.blogspot.com
Jeff, I hope my kids end up Blond and blue, so I can steal that line. It’s priceless.

Do you make them dress in slacks, white shirts with black ties, and knitted vests?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Really? Which countries has Iran invaded on the thinest of pretexts in th last decade?
It may not have been in the last decade, but I seem to remember something happening there in 1979. Google it.
 
Written By: nathan
URL: http://
abw, allow me to tweek your analogy a little to better fit the Iran question: a man you don’t like is walking toward the gun shop, so you shoot him in the head. There. Fixed.

Let’s see Nathan, 1979...ah yes an evil America-backed dictator was overthrown by a popular revolution which was then coopted by an evil non-America-backed dictator. What does that tell us about whose foreign policy is being run by children?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
abw, allow me to tweek your analogy a little to better fit the Iran question: a man you don’t like is walking toward the gun shop, so you shoot him in the head. There. Fixed.
You forgot the part where he keeps chanting "Death to you and your family" as he walks to the shop after claiming he will not use the gun as a weapon.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
You forgot the part where he keeps chanting "Death to you and your family" as he walks to the shop after claiming he will not use the gun as a weapon.
I’ll buy that, good addition. It still doesn’t mean you get to shoot him. And let’s not forget that you were best buddies with his abusive stepdad. Muttering is not a crime.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
I AM superior and powerful. Khomeini, Khameini, Ahmadeinijad - that may be YOUR intellectual and mentally rational equals, but they are NOT mine.
You over estimate yourself, and your post is nothing but an emotional rant. If you want to make an argument, do so. But posturing and taunting really doesn’t prove much of anything.

Unfortunately, I’ve seen firsthand how the world works.
*eyes rolling* I’ve learned to distrust that level of arrogance.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
When you take about "few effective options" it’s really just a desire to avoid having to take the only likely effective option to stop Iran, military force.
The disadvantages of such an action would be greater than the advantages, and both the military and the US foreign policy establishment know it.

Also, remember how people thought Iraq would be a cake walk? Well, Iran is much more powerful than Iraq, has rugged terrain, has been studying US tactics, has the capacity to easily rachet up oil prices and create unrest, and hurt us as bad as we’ll hurt them, if not worse. One lesson from Iraq: don’t overestimate the ability to project military power in a manner that can control the political outcome. Our military is not as powerful in practical application as many believe. We can bomb a lot and overthrow weak third world governments, but look at how little Iraq has stretched the military, divided the American public, and created a huge mess. Multipy that by 100 for Iran...at least...
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Muttering is not a crime.
Actually it can be. Death threats are illegal, muttered or otherwise. And reaching for a weapon is grounds for justifiable homicide.

Sorry, your fixed analogy still favors evil warmongering neocons and people who think Iran having nukes is a bad idea, which supposedly includes most of the Dem prez candidates.
The disadvantages of such an action would be greater than the advantages, and both the military and the US foreign policy establishment know it.

Also, remember how people thought Iraq would be a cake walk?
The disadvantage of US military action in Iran is greater than the advantages EXCEPT for actually letting Iran get nukes.

And getting rid of Saddam was a relative cakewalk and Iran wouldn’t be much tougher to break. The problems come in the rebuilding.
 
Written By: abw
URL: http://abw.mee.nu
Actually it can be. Death threats are illegal, muttered or otherwise. And reaching for a weapon is grounds for justifiable homicide.
If you insist on pushing the analogy, "F@#$off and die" is not the same as "I’m going to kill you" and reaching is not the same as purchasing. We all know people whose having of guns is clearly a bad idea, but, because we don’t want them telling us we can’t have guns, we don’t tell them they can’t, and we don’t shoot them on their way to the store.
The disadvantage of US military action in Iran is greater than the advantages EXCEPT for actually letting Iran get nukes.
What exactly are the disadvantages to the US of Iran having a nuclear bomb as you imagine them?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
You over estimate yourself, and your post is nothing but an emotional rant.
So it’s not you UNDERestimating me, it’s me OVERestimating myself. So you are, among other things, an expert on me and my motivations. I beg your pardon.

Yet, you can make airy pronouncements like:
IOW: don’t over-react. And if we can develop alternatives to oil dependency, then we can wash our hands of that part of the world and let it develop at its own pace and scope.
And you expect to be taken seriously? You know NOTHING about these people. But since you don’t want to take my word for it, maybe you’d take their word for it.

It’s a little lengthy, but most entertaining. My favorite is the cartoon of the Israeli soldier mowing down kids with a machine gun until brave Ahmed throws a grenade at him, revealing the sneering Uncle Sam behind the tattered Israeli puppet.

Yeah, they’ll be content to leave us alone and develop at their "own pace and scope."

 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
So it’s not you UNDERestimating me,
Based on what you wrote, I have no reason to conclude that I should take you seriously. Perhaps if you made a sober, clear, cogent argument that would help.

And your final comments shows you’re lost in propaganda. You can always find extremists of any bent and try to pretend they are the mainstream. I really think you need to learn more about the real world. Educate yourself.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Perhaps if you made a sober, clear, cogent argument that would help.
I think you misunderstand me. I’m not arguing my point of view in the sense that I’m trying to persuade you. I’ve watched others do that here to no avail.
Why would I try to persuade a man who ignores what his own senses can clearly tell him? Neither does it bother me to not be taken seriously by you.

You posit that a nuclear-armed Iran is not a danger. I get that.

You see the Iranian regime as rational. I get that.

You think this country’s foreign policies are the cause of Muslim attacks on our citizens and soil, rather than a reaction to it. I get that, too.

You are wrong. I’m not arguing it, I’m pointing it out.

If CAIR organized a "Death to Erb!" rally and paraded it through the middle of Farmington, you would remain unperturbed, and cite statistics purporting that the majority of Muslims are NOT, in fact, desirous of killing Erb.

So in the interests of clarity, let me reiterate my position:

You are a fool. Full stop.

 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://repatriate.blogspot.com
SDN,

On Copperheads:

You’ll find few who are more supportive of the ultimate goals of the Union during the Civil War than I. But the fact is that hundreds of so-called Copperheards were imprisoned for merely voicing their opinion against the draft and the war itself (or namely, for a war which as proposed by 1862 which would remake the Union). The fact that they were arrested made the Lincoln regime tyrannical and is a very blackspot on this nation’s history. So, Copperheads, despite what I view as a flawed view of things, were often heroic in their excercise of liberty since many of them likely knew that they would be arrested for mere speech.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
Jeff,

And then Jimmy Carter sold out the Shah.

The Shah’s regime fell largely due to its own actions.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
You are wrong. I’m not arguing it, I’m pointing it out.
No, you are wrong. You can’t argue your position because you don’t have facts and arguments on your side. But you feel upset that someone holds a contrary view, so you feel an emotional need to lash out. Hey, I get it, the internet can be good therapy. Go at it, and I hope you feel good about yourself afterwards.

Meanwhile, I gotta get to class...Cheers!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
During my college days in the mid 1960’s my best friend was an Iranian. We talked many times about the Shah. Initially he was against him but his opinion changed when the Shah gave some of the royal family’s land to the people for private farms. Ahmad said that the mistake that the Shah made was forcing the clerics to do the same thing and the he also cut out the stipends that the clerics had been receiving. The Shah started losing support from the religious leaders over that and it probably contributed to his downfall.

One thing that always amazes me is that so many people judge foreign leaders as they would their friends and themselves in our culture. No one could be so irrational as to attack Israel or the US when we/they have many more nuclear weapons, they think. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has answered this question; the Moslems can absorb these attacks, he believes. If their surrogates, Hezbollah, did the dirty work, I wonder if those who are presently arguing for the sanity of the Iranian leaders would support a military strike on Iran. Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro. Mao, Hitler and now Hugo Chavez have done to their people and others what would be considered irrational and criminal if performed by US politicians, but had had their conduct initially excused at the time by far too many elites and intellectuals inside and outside of government. Some still refuse to admit that they were wrong. I can also imagine that those elites and intellectuals who can not grasp the insanity/irrationality of our enemies have never had to face a bully in the school yard.

There was a time when hesitating to act was not an act of suicide, but in our modern world, with the West’s infrastructure so susceptible to attack and collapse by WMD in too many hands, that option is almost off the table. At some point, our country must decide to do what it does not really want to do, but hopefully at a time and using methods where as little blood, theirs and ours, is spilled as humanly possible.
 
Written By: AMR
URL: http://
AMR,

Louis XIV handed out land to various parties but I wouldn’t hold his regime up as a model of appropriate government. So, what did you friend have to say about the SAVAK?
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
So, what did you friend have to say about the SAVAK?
Yeah, AMR, f*ck your friend. Being an Iranian, what would he know about Iran? Did Louis XIV extend the right to vote to women? The Shah did. He also started transitioning the country towards democracy by creating a "loyal opposition" party. He ended the feudal system in Iran and actually gave their slaves their forty acres and a mule. But since it was a monarchy that the U.S. supported, that automatically makes him an evil dictator.


Nice how libtards defame the Shah for not instantly creating a modern liberal democracy in the space of five years, but claim that it’s impossible to create a democracy in Iraq.

The perfect is the enemy of the good, just like America is the enemy of liberals.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Jeff,

Why did the Shah’s regime require a security apparatus similar in size and scope to that of the former East Germany to function? As I recall reading roughly 1/3rd of Iran’s population during the 1970s were in some way paid informants for the regime.

Now as for the land reform, etc., generally referred to as the "White Revolution," I have also read that it was it was often riddled with corruption and it seems to me was managed in the sort top down way which socialist regimes organize things. Note that it included such wonderful things as price controls.

As for the alliance with the U.S., that doesn’t come into my thinking.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
The Shah made an error Edmund Burke would recognize: he tried to change society quickly, without taking into account the cultural norms that hold society together. Some in the West, who assume our approach is "best" (because it fits our cultural values) think that it was worth the repression because he brought some western ideas into Iran. But those ideas are partly responsible for the Iran we face today, he went overboard in trying to reform, and ended up relying on repression and becoming corrupt. In that, he was doomed to fail, even if we had propped him up awhile longer.

The more effective authoritarian re-casting of culture came from Ataturk. But he was able to gain immense popularity (unlike the Shah) and, despite his success, military coups were common long after Ataturk’s death. And now, with a strong Islamic party, it’s clear Ataturk didn’t completely remake Turkish culture.

So romanticizing the Shah or making it sound like his attempts at westernization were somehow destined for success if only we’d supported him is misguided. It’s not an accident that Saddam and the Shah got along well.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider