September 24, 2005

FINE, VERIFY:

U.S. Hails IAEA Decision on Iran Referral (GEORGE JAHN, 9/24/05, Associated Press)

The U.N. atomic watchdog agency Saturday put Iran just one step away from referral to the Security Council unless Tehran eases suspicions about its nuclear activities in coming months - a move the United States has been pushing for years.

The chief U.S. delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency hailed the decision, describing it as a wake-up call for Tehran ``to come clean'' or face the consequences.

But his Iranian counterpart blasted the approval of the resolution and warned of retaliation. Tehran maintains its nuclear program is for generating electricity.


Then a thorough inspection regime shouldn't be a proble,

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 24, 2005 5:33 PM
Comments

Why should the Iranians come clean on anything? Or anyone else for that matter? The U.S. hasn't. Israel hasn't. The U.S. still sells weapons to countries who torture their citizens which is not only against international law, by against the U.S.'s own law. Virtually every country the U.S. sells to does this. And, just to use the rightwing gun-loving pseudo-patriots logic against them, why wouldn't you want everyone to have many nuclear weapons. I mean, if everyone has one then no one would use one, right? That's the same "logic" used when talking about guns. And, the U.S. has been the only country to have ever stooped to the level of using one. They have ZERO business lecturing anyone. At least you're consistant in your hypocricy.KB

Posted by: KB at September 25, 2005 1:22 AM

Why should the Iranians come clean on anything?

To avoid glowing in the dark.

True, Israel doesn't officially admit to having nukes, but that's an open secret.

What do you believe that the U.S. hasn't "come clean" about ?
Alien tech at Area 51 ?
It's also an open secret that the F-22 Raptor is largely the product of back-engineered tech from the Roswell crash.

After all, NOBODY designs and builds an aircraft that's FOUR TIMES as good as the next-best human effort without a bit of help.

The U.S. still sells weapons to countries who torture their citizens...
Virtually every country the U.S. sells to does this.

Countries such as India, Israel, and Taiwan, noted oppressive dictatorships all.

[W]hy wouldn't you want everyone to have many nuclear weapons. I mean, if everyone has one then no one would use one, right? That's the same "logic" used when talking about guns.

Well, no.
No doubt there are those who advocate a .38 in every waistband, but the vast majority see the logic in background checks and waiting periods.

By those criteria, Iran FAILS to qualify for nuke ownership.
So sorry, please try again when you're less crazy.

[T]he U.S. has been the only country to have ever [used a nuke]. They have ZERO business lecturing anyone.

I take it that you would rather the U.S. have invaded Japan using conventional means, including firebombing major Japanese cities, and starving the populace into submission, which would have resulted in literally MILLIONS of Japanese casualties.
After all, for all of MacArthur's operations overall (March 1944-May 1945), 23 Japanese were killed for every ONE American - (13,742 Americans; 310,165 Japanese killed).

As for American casualties under that scenario, here is a monograph produced under the auspices of CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence, and the Harvard University program for Studies of Intelligence and Policy.

The Joint War Plans Committee, in its paper prepared for Truman's 18 June 1945 meeting, had estimated that 220,000 American casualties, including 46,000 KIA, would result if Japan's surrender required seizing all of Kyushu plus the Tokyo Plain. As was noted earlier in this study, those figures were consistent with estimates made at the same time by the staffs of MacArthur and Nimitz.

To many observers at the time, the quarter-million figure put forward in June by the Joint War Plans Committee could well have seemed intimidating. By comparison, the combined casualty figure for MacArthur's campaign through the Philippines, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima was 133,000. For Normandy, from D-Day through 48 days of conflict, losses were 63,360. For the Battle of the Bulge they were 59,000.

So, if we had killed millions of Japanese with small arms, conventional bombs, incendiary devices, and through starvation, and suffered another 50,000 U.S. troops killed, THEN America would be free to lecture the world about nukes ?

Hoo-boy.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 25, 2005 3:49 AM

Stooped?

I rarely break my own rule against name calling, but in this instance I feel it's fully justified, KB, you are a fool.

Posted by: erp at September 25, 2005 10:16 AM

I'm with erp on this one--the ;problem is we don't use them enough and irradiating the Iranian and Korean nuclear facilities would be a good place to start rectifying that fault.

Posted by: oj at September 25, 2005 10:19 AM

What's the most important word KB uses? "They"

Posted by: David Cohen at September 25, 2005 12:02 PM

Well, when you think it's hypocritical to have different standards for America and the Soviet Union then we are they.

Posted by: oj at September 25, 2005 12:07 PM

Michael said:
Why should the Iranians come clean on anything?kb

"To avoid glowing in the dark."

Oh, I see. So, THEY would glow in the dark, but no one else would. Perhaps the U.S. should just sell them nuclear weapons so that they can protect themselves like Israel.KB

"True, Israel doesn't officially admit to having nukes, but that's an open secret."

Oh, well that makes it all better then. If you just tell your secret then it's okay. So, the Iranians should just wait until they've finished and then tell. Then it will be okay? Hmmm...Can't wait for more of this logic. If you openly support terrorism does it make that okay as well?KB

"What do you believe that the U.S. hasn't "come clean" about?"

What kind of absurd question is that? You DON'T think the U.S. secretly works on things all the time? Shall I give you a list of things the U.S. has worked on in secret which have now been declassified, which means that the list is much longer in reality. And "come clean"? Everyone knows that the U.S. has thousands of nuclear weapons. And they were supposed to be making good faith efforts to reduce the numbers many years ago. They haven't.KB

"Alien tech at Area 51?"

I wouldn't know about this. I'm not interested in conspiracy theories like the right are. I prefer facts.KB

"It's also an open secret that the F-22 Raptor is largely the product of back-engineered tech from the Roswell crash."

I wouldn't know. Sounds like you're well informed regarding these sorts of things though. Care to let any more of your true interests slip out?KB

"After all, NOBODY designs and builds an aircraft that's FOUR TIMES as good as the next-best human effort without a bit of help."

snore KB

The U.S. still sells weapons to countries who torture their citizens...Virtually every country the U.S. sells to does this."

"Countries such as India, Israel, and Taiwan, noted oppressive dictatorships all."

Well, that I said "virtually" means...uhhh...virtually. You've given exactly three examples. Let's look:

India: "Torture has been used routinely by all the security forces operating in Kashmir. Although the problem is widely known to the authorities in Srinagar and New Delhi, neither has ever made any serious effort to curb it...."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/abus-tor.htm

Taiwan: Taiwan is probably a little better, though it still has a way to go regarding human rights. I could only find a few examples of torture which were primarily done by the police.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27767.htm
http://taiwansecurity.org/TT/TT-010400-Human-Rights-in-Taiwan.htm
http://www.tahr.org.tw/site/english/engintro1.html

Israel: Being that you could only listed Israel as a joke I'll save space by not listing the hundreds of links showing this, but only one where you can educate yourself, maybe.
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book102h.htm

[W]hy wouldn't you want everyone to have many nuclear weapons. I mean, if everyone has one then no one would use one, right? That's the same "logic" used when talking about guns.kb

"Well, no."

Well, yes. Okay, not "everyone". I'm sure there are a few here and there who are the odd ones.KB

"No doubt there are those who advocate a .38 in every waistband, but the vast majority see the logic in background checks and waiting periods."

And what logic that is. I guess it is a step up. I just find it odd that there is even a debate about guns at all. No one should have one.KB

"By those criteria, Iran FAILS to qualify for nuke ownership."

And so it's the U.S. who decides that they need a background check and waiting period? Who gave them that right? Oh, I forgot, if you have the most weapons you automatically have the right. It's just the law of the jungle, huh? Especially when the one making the rules is the only country to have ever used them. Just how far can apologetics of mass terrorism go. Let me guess, you think bombing Japan was good too, huh? Or necessary? Let's see.KB

"So sorry, please try again when you're less crazy."

Yes, well, you've sure proven your case. If I were the leader of any country the first thing I'd probably do is to develop nuclear weapons in secret. I mean, you know how well this works as a deterrent. Look at the models we have. The U.S., Israel, India, Pakastan, North Korea...None have been invaded either.KB

[T]he U.S. has been the only country to have ever [used a nuke]. They have ZERO business lecturing anyone.kb

"I take it that you would rather the U.S. have invaded Japan using conventional means, including firebombing major Japanese cities, and starving the populace into submission, which would have resulted in literally MILLIONS of Japanese casualties."

Well, given that this is VERY OLD and outdated propaganda, there's nothing really to argue. The bombing wasn't necessary. Japan was going to surrender anyway, as has been shown time and time again. It was nothing but mass terrorism. And this is using the U.S.'s own definition of terrorism which includes striking at non-military targets in order to acheive political ends. Even the threat to do so is considered terrorism. I love the apologetics for this terrorism. It shows just how depraved some folks can be. There are many places you can educate yourself about this as well. Here are a few:
HIROSHIMA
WHO DISAGREED WITH THE ATOMIC BOMBING?
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

"The source of evidence I refer to consists of the views of a wide variety of top-level military leaders who, both in 1945 and afterwards stated explicitly and repeatedly that using atomic bombs against Japan was not a military necessity in 1945. Strangely, Bonnett neither discusses nor acknowledges any of this evidence (some of which is well-known, other parts brought to historical attention for the first time in The Decision)"
http://www.doug-long.com/thad103.htm

"After all, for all of MacArthur's operations overall (March 1944-May 1945), 23 Japanese were killed for every ONE American - (13,742 Americans; 310,165 Japanese killed)."

Oh, I guess that's a good thing. How many were civilians?KB

"As for American casualties under that scenario, here is a monograph produced under the auspices of CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence.."

Yeah, I know. Read this a LONG time ago. So? The bombing wasn't necessary. If it was simply to give an example, they could have dropped in in an unpopulated place. It was nothing but an experiment and a chance to show the world who was going to make the rules from now on. Do what we say, or this could happen to you too. It was terrorism, so quit trying to pretend it wasn't.KB

"So, if we had killed millions of Japanese with small arms, conventional bombs, incendiary devices, and through starvation, and suffered another 50,000 U.S. troops killed, THEN America would be free to lecture the world about nukes?"

No, we wouldn't be free to lecture the world about anything anymore than we aren't allowed to now. Given that your premise that millions more wuld have been killed, so we actually did THEM a favor by nuking them is quite depraved and profane. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. That's okay though. You keep on trying to justify your terrorism, and bin Laden

"Hoo-boy."

Finally, a statement which isn't verifiably false. Source?KB
=================================================
erp drooled:

"Stooped?"

"I rarely break my own rule against name calling, but in this instance I feel it's fully justified, KB, you are a fool."

Well, I guess that's all the proof I needed. Thanks for such clarity and insight. Now that you've said it, I know I MUST be a fool.KB
=================================================
oj said, sarcastically/cynically/ignorantly:

"I'm with erp on this one"

Wow! Another deep thinker. I can't wait.KB

"--the ;problem is we don't use them enough and irradiating the Iranian and Korean nuclear facilities would be a good place to start rectifying that fault."

Why not the rest of the world. I mean, everyone wants to be like us anyway, right? Just like the general(?) told the soldier on Full Metal Jacket when referring to the Vietnamese "Inside every gook there's an American trying to get out." When I hear oj's ideas it's about the same. I really don't believe he's being serious though. He's just trying to get a rise. Won't work. Try again.KB
=================================================
Dave siad for lack of anything else:
"What's the most important word KB uses? "They""

Another precise and insightful comment by "they". Want to make a point or talk about something related to any topic, or just want to point out my use of they? Hey, I use "he", "she", and even "it" sometimes, too. Why aren't you spending the time to point out these?KB
=================================================
oj said:

"Well, when you think it's hypocritical to have different standards for America and the Soviet Union then we are they."

Nope. Same standards for everyone. No one can have any. It's quite simple.KB

Posted by: KB at September 26, 2005 6:24 AM

Michael said:
Why should the Iranians come clean on anything?kb

"To avoid glowing in the dark."

Oh, I see. So, THEY would glow in the dark, but no one else would. Perhaps the U.S. should just sell them nuclear weapons so that they can protect themselves like Israel.KB

"True, Israel doesn't officially admit to having nukes, but that's an open secret."

Oh, well that makes it all better then. If you just tell your secret then it's okay. So, the Iranians should just wait until they've finished and then tell. Then it will be okay? Hmmm...Can't wait for more of this logic. If you openly support terrorism does it make that okay as well?KB

"What do you believe that the U.S. hasn't "come clean" about?"

What kind of absurd question is that? You DON'T think the U.S. secretly works on things all the time? Shall I give you a list of things the U.S. has worked on in secret which have now been declassified, which means that the list is much longer in reality. And "come clean"? Everyone knows that the U.S. has thousands of nuclear weapons. And they were supposed to be making good faith efforts to reduce the numbers many years ago. They haven't.KB

"Alien tech at Area 51?"

I wouldn't know about this. I'm not interested in conspiracy theories like the right are. I prefer facts.KB

"It's also an open secret that the F-22 Raptor is largely the product of back-engineered tech from the Roswell crash."

I wouldn't know. Sounds like you're well informed regarding these sorts of things though. Care to let any more of your true interests slip out?KB

"After all, NOBODY designs and builds an aircraft that's FOUR TIMES as good as the next-best human effort without a bit of help."

snore KB

The U.S. still sells weapons to countries who torture their citizens...Virtually every country the U.S. sells to does this."

"Countries such as India, Israel, and Taiwan, noted oppressive dictatorships all."

Well, that I said "virtually" means...uhhh...virtually. You've given exactly three examples. Let's look:

India: "Torture has been used routinely by all the security forces operating in Kashmir. Although the problem is widely known to the authorities in Srinagar and New Delhi, neither has ever made any serious effort to curb it...."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/abus-tor.htm

Taiwan: Taiwan is probably a little better, though it still has a way to go regarding human rights. I could only find a few examples of torture which were primarily done by the police.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27767.htm
http://taiwansecurity.org/TT/TT-010400-Human-Rights-in-Taiwan.htm
http://www.tahr.org.tw/site/english/engintro1.html

Israel: Being that you could only listed Israel as a joke I'll save space by not listing the hundreds of links showing this, but only one where you can educate yourself, maybe.
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book102h.htm

[W]hy wouldn't you want everyone to have many nuclear weapons. I mean, if everyone has one then no one would use one, right? That's the same "logic" used when talking about guns.kb

"Well, no."

Well, yes. Okay, not "everyone". I'm sure there are a few here and there who are the odd ones.KB

"No doubt there are those who advocate a .38 in every waistband, but the vast majority see the logic in background checks and waiting periods."

And what logic that is. I guess it is a step up. I just find it odd that there is even a debate about guns at all. No one should have one.KB

"By those criteria, Iran FAILS to qualify for nuke ownership."

And so it's the U.S. who decides that they need a background check and waiting period? Who gave them that right? Oh, I forgot, if you have the most weapons you automatically have the right. It's just the law of the jungle, huh? Especially when the one making the rules is the only country to have ever used them. Just how far can apologetics of mass terrorism go. Let me guess, you think bombing Japan was good too, huh? Or necessary? Let's see.KB

"So sorry, please try again when you're less crazy."

Yes, well, you've sure proven your case. If I were the leader of any country the first thing I'd probably do is to develop nuclear weapons in secret. I mean, you know how well this works as a deterrent. Look at the models we have. The U.S., Israel, India, Pakastan, North Korea...None have been invaded either.KB

[T]he U.S. has been the only country to have ever [used a nuke]. They have ZERO business lecturing anyone.kb

"I take it that you would rather the U.S. have invaded Japan using conventional means, including firebombing major Japanese cities, and starving the populace into submission, which would have resulted in literally MILLIONS of Japanese casualties."

Well, given that this is VERY OLD and outdated propaganda, there's nothing really to argue. The bombing wasn't necessary. Japan was going to surrender anyway, as has been shown time and time again. It was nothing but mass terrorism. And this is using the U.S.'s own definition of terrorism which includes striking at non-military targets in order to acheive political ends. Even the threat to do so is considered terrorism. I love the apologetics for this terrorism. It shows just how depraved some folks can be. There are many places you can educate yourself about this as well. Here are a few:
HIROSHIMA
WHO DISAGREED WITH THE ATOMIC BOMBING?
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

"The source of evidence I refer to consists of the views of a wide variety of top-level military leaders who, both in 1945 and afterwards stated explicitly and repeatedly that using atomic bombs against Japan was not a military necessity in 1945. Strangely, Bonnett neither discusses nor acknowledges any of this evidence (some of which is well-known, other parts brought to historical attention for the first time in The Decision)"
http://www.doug-long.com/thad103.htm

"After all, for all of MacArthur's operations overall (March 1944-May 1945), 23 Japanese were killed for every ONE American - (13,742 Americans; 310,165 Japanese killed)."

Oh, I guess that's a good thing. How many were civilians?KB

"As for American casualties under that scenario, here is a monograph produced under the auspices of CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence.."

Yeah, I know. Read this a LONG time ago. So? The bombing wasn't necessary. If it was simply to give an example, they could have dropped in in an unpopulated place. It was nothing but an experiment and a chance to show the world who was going to make the rules from now on. Do what we say, or this could happen to you too. It was terrorism, so quit trying to pretend it wasn't.KB

"So, if we had killed millions of Japanese with small arms, conventional bombs, incendiary devices, and through starvation, and suffered another 50,000 U.S. troops killed, THEN America would be free to lecture the world about nukes?"

No, we wouldn't be free to lecture the world about anything anymore than we aren't allowed to now. Given that your premise that millions more wuld have been killed, so we actually did THEM a favor by nuking them is quite depraved and profane. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. That's okay though. You keep on trying to justify your terrorism, and bin Laden

"Hoo-boy."

Finally, a statement which isn't verifiably false. Source?KB
=================================================
erp drooled:

"Stooped?"

"I rarely break my own rule against name calling, but in this instance I feel it's fully justified, KB, you are a fool."

Well, I guess that's all the proof I needed. Thanks for such clarity and insight. Now that you've said it, I know I MUST be a fool.KB
=================================================
oj said, sarcastically/cynically/ignorantly:

"I'm with erp on this one"

Wow! Another deep thinker. I can't wait.KB

"--the ;problem is we don't use them enough and irradiating the Iranian and Korean nuclear facilities would be a good place to start rectifying that fault."

Why not the rest of the world. I mean, everyone wants to be like us anyway, right? Just like the general(?) told the soldier on Full Metal Jacket when referring to the Vietnamese "Inside every gook there's an American trying to get out." When I hear oj's ideas it's about the same. I really don't believe he's being serious though. He's just trying to get a rise. Won't work. Try again.KB
=================================================
Dave siad for lack of anything else:
"What's the most important word KB uses? "They""

Another precise and insightful comment by "they". Want to make a point or talk about something related to any topic, or just want to point out my use of they? Hey, I use "he", "she", and even "it" sometimes, too. Why aren't you spending the time to point out these?KB
=================================================
oj said:

"Well, when you think it's hypocritical to have different standards for America and the Soviet Union then we are they."

Nope. Same standards for everyone. No one can have any. It's quite simple.KB

Posted by: KB at September 26, 2005 8:08 AM

KB:

That's what we mean by anti-American, the belief that we and our enemies are equals.

Posted by: oj at September 26, 2005 8:29 AM

That's the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard. You ARE joking again, aren't you? I sure as hell hope so. Either that or you've just made apologetics for every terrorist group on the planet. So, let me get this straight. Unless you believe that America is number one, unequal, better than everyone else, have some sort of right to project power wherever they wish, etc...you're anti-American? AHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I mean, I know this is the common logic of every imperialist dictator which has ever existed throughout history, but I didn't really believe there were actually folks living in the U.S. who thought this, outside of a few neo-Nazi groups anyway. It is EXACTLY this position, and the brazen pride you have in asserting this, that makes the rest of the world despise the U.S. I'm sorry, but it is exactly YOUR position which is anti-American. The need to keep cheering "We're number one!" is a good sign of it, not to mention just a basic insecurity with oneself. People who are insecure don't need to go around cheerleading. And believe me, others don't really like to hear it. And believe me also if your immediate response upon reading the sentence prior to this one is that you think "Who cares what they think?" This, TOO, is another sign of depraved anti-Americanism. There are NO anti-Americans living in the U.S. There are simply those who believe that America is about democracy, and then there are those, like you, who do not. Democracy is the antithesis of the ideas you've asserted. I say move to a more totalitarian society where you would feel at home and let those Americans who believe in democracy take care of the country. You pseudo-patriots are funny. And, yes, I guess the U.S. is better in a few areas. I mean, we have the highest murder rate, highest prison population, rank number 7-8 in infant mortality, just behind Cuba, and on and on....but, hey, we're still number one, and it makes me damn proud to say it over and over in the mirror every morning because I know no one serious would ever say it to me. Grow up already. Oh, by the way, most, if not all, of those freedoms that have made the U.S. have what positive qualities it does, were fought for by the left. Anyway, if your criteria is to be used to show one is anti-American just because you don't think you're better than everyone else, then I'm proud to be anti-American, at least anti-those pseudo-Americans which maintain your idea.KB

Posted by: KB at September 26, 2005 7:48 PM
« OUR LINE: | Main | LEADING US BACK HOME: »