Re: Uh Oh!

Matthew Hennig wrote:
"Randolph M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:443E73EF.9000606@xxxxxxxxx:


Matthew Hennig wrote:

"Randolph M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:443E6863.9050102@xxxxxxxxx:



Matthew Hennig wrote:


rich hammett <bubbarichau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:123rmftels34hf3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:




Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, Matthew
Hennig:



Jeff Davis <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:4ee80$443d718f$8b3738b4$9306@xxxxxxxxxx:

Matthew Hennig wrote:



Jeff Davis <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:926a5$443d5ab9$8b3738b4$2183@xxxxxxxxxx:





Matthew Hennig wrote:




Jeff Davis <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:b58e0$443d569e$8b3738b4$338@xxxxxxxxxx:






Matthew Hennig wrote:





Jeff Davis <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:2f6b5$443c5f1a$8b3738b4$13153@xxxxxxxxxx:







Charles Beauchamp wrote:







Well then that is simply you reading things in that are
not stated. I am not "cheerleading." I commented on
options if there is to be military action taken. That is
all. This business with Iran is far

from complete (note\ing that today we find that Iran has



enriched


uranium).

Tangent.

What's the big deal about Iran having enriched uranium?
That's earthshaking news? If a country has a nuclear
reactor, they're probably in possession of enriched
uranium. Harping on the subject is simply crying "shark"
over a dogfish.


Just keep your head buried in the sand, Jeff, and maybe all
of this will just blow over.

Iran has nuclear reactors so they have enriched uranium
anyway, right? So, they're doing it for themselves, now,
instead of buying it

from someone else. That's a reason to destroy them? The

uranium


they

purchase from abroad can be monitored. If their purchases are
20 times what they need for their reactors, well, time to get
concerned. The uranium they mine locally is useless to them
since they don't have the technology to separate out
contaminants.


The message I'm getting from you is that an Iranian Bomb is
nothing to be concerned about. Their nuclear ambitions are
nothing to be concerned about, just move along, nothing to see
here.


The message I'm getting from you is if I don't say the words
that you attribute to me that you'll just infer them anyway. I
said, "If their purchases are 20 times ... etc" So you just
made up that part about an Iranian bomb not being a concern of
mine.


How do we know that they don't have the technology obtained on
the black market to process their own uranium? The IAEA and
intelligence services had little knowledge on how far Saddam had
gotten with his nuclear program on the eve of the first Gulf
War. I don't trust the Iranians on this and I doubt many
intelligence agencies trust Iran much either.

Of what country isn't that true? So, nuke 'em all.

Paranoia is a very bad mode of policy.


Show me another country where the evidence pointing towards acting
on their nuclear weapon ambitions is present, especially a country
that openly supports global terrorists as Iran does.

Pakistan. North Korea. The United States.


With Pakistan, we are working very close to them, so its rather easy
to keep an eye on what they are doing. We are accomplishing through
diplomacy what our objectives there are for now. An invasion of
Pakistan would be foolish. With North Korea, you can thank Clinton
and Albright for their worthless agreement that allowed them to
obtain the bomb.

Now which one of these is not like the other? Which one of these
does not belong?

I'm guessing you mean the one that has actually used nuclear weapons.
Am I right?


If you want to draw an equivalence between Pakistan, North Korea, and
the US, well, there's not much hope for you here. Why not just go
ahead and move to France?

Equivalence? I don't know of any two countries that are "equivalent".
And I just pointed out one dimension along which there's a significant
difference, so I'm confused by your response.


The implication seemed to be that the US actually used nukes so we're
the bad guys compared to these other two.

Well, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I'm not generally given to dividing the world into "good guys" and "bad guys", although I'm aware that some people find it attractive do that. I'm sure there are also many dimensions along which North Korea and Pakistan are worse than the US. But we were talking specifically about nuclear weapons, so that point seemed relevant. I'm sure you'd have to agree that when it comes to killing innocent civilians with nuclear weapons, the record of the US is worse than the record of North Korea or Pakistan.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bush Adiministration Keeps Pushing Iran: To Breaking Point?
    ... >next country with nuclear weapons. ... Just like he did with North Korea, ... >India and Pakistan. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Cheney shoots someone (Im not kidding)
    ... let's outsource the management of our nuclear weapons to Pakistan and Iran and North Korea. ...
    (rec.outdoors.fishing.fly)
  • Re: Charlie Reese on the Bush Cabal
    ... By the way we KNOW Pakistan has nuclear weapons, we KNOW North Korea ... most of the funding for TERRORISM emanates from Saudi Arabia. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: @@ What kind of little nuke are you? @@
    ... What Kind of Little Nuke Are You? ... Agreed Framework directly resulted in North Korea producing nukes from ... Bush has been claiming-a less likely scenario for all such a program ... by the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons -the North ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • @@ What kind of little nuke are you? @@
    ... What Kind of Little Nuke Are You? ... Agreed Framework directly resulted in North Korea producing nukes from ... Bush has been claiming-a less likely scenario for all such a program ... by the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons -the North ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)