From Bloomberg news today (April 25, 2006):
"Rumsfeld said those who believe the cost of the war in Iraq is too high should consider how failure would 'advance' the cause of the Iranian government, which the U.S. says is trying to develop nuclear weapons."
However, the U.S. also said Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons, and that was proven a lie. Iran, for its part, asserts that as a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty it is pursuing uranium enrichment only for electrical power, which requires only slightly enriched uranium, and the resulting isotope blend is unsuitable for nuclear weapons. What do you believe?
Full Version: Iranian Uranium
They're all fools. The nonproliferation treaty is a farce, and nuclear weapons are the utterly stupid toys of ego-obsessed political dinosaurs, whose extinction could not come a moment to soon.
Disarm!
Disarm!
The neo-cons create the next new enemy of the state in order to lay the platform for the midterm elections.
They can not stop themselves. They can only continue to turn ploughshares into the newest and costliest swords this ownership society can muster, (by this I mean Halliburton, The Carlyle Group, et. al.) these and their ilk are the real society of our nation, all else are rabble.
What do the spies tell us?
They can not stop themselves. They can only continue to turn ploughshares into the newest and costliest swords this ownership society can muster, (by this I mean Halliburton, The Carlyle Group, et. al.) these and their ilk are the real society of our nation, all else are rabble.
What do the spies tell us?
I guess the US will have to play the role of World Guardian again and take out Iran
Iran is an entirely different prospect to Afghanistan or Iraq.
In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, the countries' peoples were ruled over and oppressed, often savagely, by autocracies. In these cases, there was a quasi-credible argument for liberation through invasion (though the arguments that were actually given were, in Afghanistan's case, (unsuccessfully) pursuing bin Laden and (unsuccessfully) destroying Al-Qaeda, and in Iraq's case, pacifying weapons of mass destruction (that were never discovered)).
If the Iranian regime is more obviously belligerent to the USA than Iraq and Afghanistan, its populace at least is not oppressed by the government - the general populace supports the Iranian government, which was democratically elected. This is no surprise to me. I feel that many countries' electorates these days would be proud to support a regime that had the courage to tell the USA where to get off (i.e. on its own side of the Atlantic).
No-one seems to take much cognisance these days of the fact that the USA "maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational" (Wikipedia) and that it, and not its parade of named enemies, is the only country to have used them in war against another nation. The USA takes an official policy of silence towards the nuclear ambitions of Israel (and one of acceptance towards India), but is extremely vocal in denouncing those of Iran and North Korea. The USA also violates its own non-proliferation treaties through its work on low-yield bunker-busting bombs.
The Iranian government is just as power-drunk, belligerent and hard-lined as the American government is hegemonic, arrogant and hypocritical - Iran is just less flush with nuclear weaponry.
We must not underestimate the stupidity of the world's political leaders. One can see that Iran's belligerence is reciprocated to some extent, as Rice recently accused Iran of 'playing games' on the nuclear issue after Iran offered to negotiate on a few issues. A mature leader would have said "okay, let's negotiate", not "oh no you don't, you're playing games sonny boy".
With these two tragically idiotic governments in growing conflict with one another, I feel the chances of nuclear war are by no means insignificant. Of course, war is unutterably awful and outrageously stupid, and nuclear war a thousand times more so, for the simple fact that nothing is gained through victory!
"A pre-emptive war in 'defense' of freedom would surely destroy freedom, because one simply cannot engage in barbarous action without becoming a barbarian, because one cannot defend human values by calculated and unprovoked violence without doing mortal damage to the values one is trying to defend."
— J. William Fulbright
(On a purely inquisitive note, I seem to remember that Nostradamus made a prophecy that about a series of events quite like this one. Something about a tyrant rising in the east, followed by a 27-year war in which two-thirds of earth's population died... if anyone cares to dig it up, I'd be interested...)
In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, the countries' peoples were ruled over and oppressed, often savagely, by autocracies. In these cases, there was a quasi-credible argument for liberation through invasion (though the arguments that were actually given were, in Afghanistan's case, (unsuccessfully) pursuing bin Laden and (unsuccessfully) destroying Al-Qaeda, and in Iraq's case, pacifying weapons of mass destruction (that were never discovered)).
If the Iranian regime is more obviously belligerent to the USA than Iraq and Afghanistan, its populace at least is not oppressed by the government - the general populace supports the Iranian government, which was democratically elected. This is no surprise to me. I feel that many countries' electorates these days would be proud to support a regime that had the courage to tell the USA where to get off (i.e. on its own side of the Atlantic).
No-one seems to take much cognisance these days of the fact that the USA "maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational" (Wikipedia) and that it, and not its parade of named enemies, is the only country to have used them in war against another nation. The USA takes an official policy of silence towards the nuclear ambitions of Israel (and one of acceptance towards India), but is extremely vocal in denouncing those of Iran and North Korea. The USA also violates its own non-proliferation treaties through its work on low-yield bunker-busting bombs.
The Iranian government is just as power-drunk, belligerent and hard-lined as the American government is hegemonic, arrogant and hypocritical - Iran is just less flush with nuclear weaponry.
We must not underestimate the stupidity of the world's political leaders. One can see that Iran's belligerence is reciprocated to some extent, as Rice recently accused Iran of 'playing games' on the nuclear issue after Iran offered to negotiate on a few issues. A mature leader would have said "okay, let's negotiate", not "oh no you don't, you're playing games sonny boy".
With these two tragically idiotic governments in growing conflict with one another, I feel the chances of nuclear war are by no means insignificant. Of course, war is unutterably awful and outrageously stupid, and nuclear war a thousand times more so, for the simple fact that nothing is gained through victory!
"A pre-emptive war in 'defense' of freedom would surely destroy freedom, because one simply cannot engage in barbarous action without becoming a barbarian, because one cannot defend human values by calculated and unprovoked violence without doing mortal damage to the values one is trying to defend."
— J. William Fulbright
(On a purely inquisitive note, I seem to remember that Nostradamus made a prophecy that about a series of events quite like this one. Something about a tyrant rising in the east, followed by a 27-year war in which two-thirds of earth's population died... if anyone cares to dig it up, I'd be interested...)
There is no way to obtain information about the future, which does not yet exist. Nostrodamus is vague enough to be interpreted in a large number of ways.
QUOTE(Rick @ May 01, 09:45 PM) 
There is no way to obtain information about the future, which does not yet exist. Nostrodamus is vague enough to be interpreted in a large number of ways.
Damn you radical materialists!
I will destroy you...Of course, Nostradamus was just an aside. What we're really discussing here is clear and present, and very dangerous - uranium enrichment in Iran.
Regarding whether Iran's intentions are purely for energy or for nuclear weapons, I don't think we can really vote either way. At best, it's a guess. And it misses the real point, because as we've seen the actions of the 'international community' (read: the USA, plus those nations or organisations sufficiently gullible or corrupt to submit to ally with its hegemony) care little for the truth of the situation regarding weapons in other countries, nor the sovereignty of the nations of whose natural resources they'd fancy a share. Fortunately, the possibility that this shocking opinion may actually be true is becoming more and more acknowledged by the mainstream.
As I've said, I think nukes are just plain stupid. We should raise a very skeptical eyebrow at the official comments of either of the major players here, but I personally am far more wary of the USA's commentary, given its consistently hypocritical rhetoric (to say nothing of its outright lies) and extremely inglorious ethical history, especialy regarding nuclear technology.
The Iranian government, for its part, may just be extremely angry at the USA on behalf of its populace - and, if we're circumspect and honest, I think, understandably so. They are being stupid and belligerent, but at least they're honest. And at least the Iranian government was democratically elected, which is more than one can say for the USA's.
But really, like just about every instance of geopolitics, the whole thing is a farce, and public opinion counts for nothing in the face of the deluded dinosaurs who control the little red buttons. I think the most we can say is:
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
the deluded dinosaurs are controlled by public opinion; Bush et al have the public support of bible thumpers throughout the midplains swath of the US. Without this base of support, he would not have been elected president. The bible thumpers elected him president because they fell prey to the right's propaganda machine, so either we blame the abuse of propaganda (it's free speech after all, even if it does incite actions of stupidity), or we blame the gullibility of bible thumpers who fall prey to it. I mean, come on, if you believe that a man called Jesus was the lamb of God and died for our sins, then you're bound to believe anything. The more intelligent on Bush's team (rightly) figured this out and exploited the fact even though they'll give appearances to the contrary. Kudos to those Machiavellian swine.
Whether other nations join with the US crusade is not so much a question of US credibility as it is what is in the other countries best interests.
Note Lao_Tzu, that I am not outraged and I am paying attention. Everything goes according to necessity, even the world wide dramas. It is when we fail to view it from the perspective of necessity that we are prone to become enraged at iniquities. Let me ask you, would you become enraged at a triangle because by necessity its three angles must sum to 180 degrees?
Whether other nations join with the US crusade is not so much a question of US credibility as it is what is in the other countries best interests.
Note Lao_Tzu, that I am not outraged and I am paying attention. Everything goes according to necessity, even the world wide dramas. It is when we fail to view it from the perspective of necessity that we are prone to become enraged at iniquities. Let me ask you, would you become enraged at a triangle because by necessity its three angles must sum to 180 degrees?
No discredit to the Christian faith, but most of the Bush-supporting bible thumpers are deluded. Bush et al have the support of people who might as well be automata, so great is the extent to which they have been and continue to be brainwashed.
Unless I misconstrue what you mean by "necessity", I don't think I agree with you, Neural, when you say that everything goes according to necessity. Sure, the current state of things has arisen, but that is no indicatin of its validity or its necessity. It is a common failure of philosophers to reason that because a thing exists, it had or has a right to exist. That the status quo is here does not mean that it was necessary, unless one a strict determinist (in which case one ought perhaps to review one's understanding of quantum physics).
I would say that everything happens not according to necessity, but according to contingency: causes and conditions, of which we are both causing and affected agents.
It is not necessary, for example, to build and test nuclear weapons. They benefit nothing and no-one, except insofar as they deter others from using their own unnecessarily-built and unnecessarily-tested nuclear weaponry. It is all a massive, stupid waste of resources. But it happens, and that occurrence is contingent upon causes and conditions, such as governmental arrogance, ignorance, national paranoia, and nuclear technology.
The US invasion of Iraq did not arise from necessity - it arose from hegemony, propaganda, and the irrational rage of half a country's population. All of that was unnecessary, tragic, and could have been avoided with calm reason. It was contingent upon desire for oil, delusion, rage following the false equation of 9/11/2001 and Osama Bin Laden with Iraq, and many other causes and conditions. That calm reason was not forthcoming does not mean it was not necessary. But its lack of appearance was and still is contingent upon apathy and the restraint of open discourse on matters of national global importance.
On the flip side, nuclear disarmament has been necessary for decades, but it has not eventuated. If a nuclear winter comes, we may jutifiably question our own failure to scream protest from the walls. This too, has not eventuated, but it may prove to have been necessary.
Unless I misconstrue what you mean by "necessity", I don't think I agree with you, Neural, when you say that everything goes according to necessity. Sure, the current state of things has arisen, but that is no indicatin of its validity or its necessity. It is a common failure of philosophers to reason that because a thing exists, it had or has a right to exist. That the status quo is here does not mean that it was necessary, unless one a strict determinist (in which case one ought perhaps to review one's understanding of quantum physics).
I would say that everything happens not according to necessity, but according to contingency: causes and conditions, of which we are both causing and affected agents.
It is not necessary, for example, to build and test nuclear weapons. They benefit nothing and no-one, except insofar as they deter others from using their own unnecessarily-built and unnecessarily-tested nuclear weaponry. It is all a massive, stupid waste of resources. But it happens, and that occurrence is contingent upon causes and conditions, such as governmental arrogance, ignorance, national paranoia, and nuclear technology.
The US invasion of Iraq did not arise from necessity - it arose from hegemony, propaganda, and the irrational rage of half a country's population. All of that was unnecessary, tragic, and could have been avoided with calm reason. It was contingent upon desire for oil, delusion, rage following the false equation of 9/11/2001 and Osama Bin Laden with Iraq, and many other causes and conditions. That calm reason was not forthcoming does not mean it was not necessary. But its lack of appearance was and still is contingent upon apathy and the restraint of open discourse on matters of national global importance.
On the flip side, nuclear disarmament has been necessary for decades, but it has not eventuated. If a nuclear winter comes, we may jutifiably question our own failure to scream protest from the walls. This too, has not eventuated, but it may prove to have been necessary.
I don't mean 'necessity' from a moral perspective but from a causal perspective, in terms of phenomena arising as a result of a series of causal events that could not be any other than what they are. Even quantum mechanics, in the evolution of the wavefunction, is deterministic.
Well, to argue about determinism (especially if we discussed quantum physics) would be way off the topic of Iranian uranium.
I suppose my sentiment is that if an attitude of strict determinism leads us, with a defeated shrug of the shoulders, to accept glibly the shortcomings of the world's political situation, and to abstain from trying to change them for the better, then that is a serious fault.
We ought not to be led by determinism toward fatalism, and thence to indifference.
I suppose my sentiment is that if an attitude of strict determinism leads us, with a defeated shrug of the shoulders, to accept glibly the shortcomings of the world's political situation, and to abstain from trying to change them for the better, then that is a serious fault.
We ought not to be led by determinism toward fatalism, and thence to indifference.
QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ May 02, 07:55 AM)
Damn you radical materialists! I will destroy you...
Of course, Nostradamus was just an aside. What we're really discussing here is clear and present, and very dangerous - uranium enrichment in Iran.
I will destroy you...Of course, Nostradamus was just an aside. What we're really discussing here is clear and present, and very dangerous - uranium enrichment in Iran.
Consciousness is a substance and I am a materialist.
Enriched uranium is only dangerous if it's enriched above 20%, and Iran does not yet have that capability. Below 20% enrichment, it will not explode. Most reactor fuel is enriched to the 4% level that Iran claims it intends. The US weapons grade uranium is enriched to 93%.
QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ May 02, 11:09 AM)
I suppose my sentiment is that if an attitude of strict determinism leads us, with a defeated shrug of the shoulders, to accept glibly the shortcomings of the world's political situation, and to abstain from trying to change them for the better, then that is a serious fault.
We ought not to be led by determinism toward fatalism, and thence to indifference.
agreed. I found your comments above on contingency to be intriguing. I'll have to meditate on them.
QUOTE(Neural @ May 02, 08:14 PM)
I found your comments above on contingency to be intriguing. I'll have to meditate on them.
Groovy.
Yay, I got my second pip! Now I'm... *ahem* .... a junior member.
Mwoo hoo ha ha ha.... I am junior member, hear me roar.
QUOTE(Rick @ May 02, 08:14 PM)
Consciousness is a substance and I am a materialist.
That is a fascinating statement. Consciousness as a substance. I like it. Thoughts are just chemicals, etc...?
If thoughts are just chemicals, then what of the extent to which chemicals are just thoughts?
QUOTE(Rick @ May 02, 08:14 PM)
Enriched uranium is only dangerous if it's enriched above 20%, and Iran does not yet have that capability. Below 20% enrichment, it will not explode. Most reactor fuel is enriched to the 4% level that Iran claims it intends. The US weapons grade uranium is enriched to 93%.
*sigh* Oh, to be the fly on the inside of W's skull... all those pretty voices... ninety-three percent, Georgie-boy, ninety-threeeee percentttttt...... [think Gollum].
If we can do anything more than laugh and cry at the clowns that lead us, please let me know...
QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ May 02, 11:24 AM)
Yay, I got my second pip! Now I'm... *ahem* .... a junior member.
Mwoo hoo ha ha ha.... I am junior member, hear me roar.
By the way, Mad Max just became SENIOR member! That B**tard beat me to it!
QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ May 02, 12:36 PM)
... Thoughts are just chemicals, etc...? ...
Maybe your thoughts are "just" chemicals. Mine are splendid chemicals.
Actually, while there is provably a chemical basis to consciousness, chemistry is an objective science, while consciousness is (by definition) subjective, and should have a separate terminology.
The answer appears to be in:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?artic...rnational_news/
Apparently, Iran already has the capability to produce highly enriched uranium (HEU), contradicting the experts. There are only two uses for HEU. One is for bombs and the other is for compact power supplies such as for nuclear submarines and space nuclear reactors. It would appear that his hand being forced by events, Bush must now stop his saber rattling and take action or back down completely. Which will it be?
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?artic...rnational_news/
Apparently, Iran already has the capability to produce highly enriched uranium (HEU), contradicting the experts. There are only two uses for HEU. One is for bombs and the other is for compact power supplies such as for nuclear submarines and space nuclear reactors. It would appear that his hand being forced by events, Bush must now stop his saber rattling and take action or back down completely. Which will it be?
wow, well then I suppose add one to the map of places the US will be bombing..
I think not. Invading Iraq was reckless, but bombing Iran would potentially involve Iran's supporters Russia and China. Not even Bush could be that stupid.
QUOTE(Rick @ May 12, 03:07 PM)
Apparently, Iran already has the capability to produce highly enriched uranium (HEU), contradicting the experts. There are only two uses for HEU. One is for bombs and the other is for compact power supplies such as for nuclear submarines and space nuclear reactors. It would appear that his hand being forced by events, Bush must now stop his saber rattling and take action or back down completely. Which will it be?
Two weeks have gone by now and not a peep out of Bush on this subject. It appears that he has quietly backed down. Why aren't the Republicans in an uproar over this apparent show of weakness by their hero?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.