LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Anti-Nuke Activist: Iran Has a 'Right' to Nukes

Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 8:19:10 am PST

Nobel Peace laureate Tad Daley, a writing fellow with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, has a piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer arguing that Iran has a right to seek nuclear weapons.

It’s a glimpse into the bizarre mental contortions necessary for a “peace activist” to openly support a radical Islamic state’s “right” to the ultimate weapon. He even seems to realize that Iran is lying about their “peaceful intentions”—but his hatred and distrust of the West, and especially President Bush, trumps everything else. Daley is a nuclear freeze advocate who’s in favor of Iran having nuclear bombs; a non-proliferation activist who sees nothing wrong with this kind of proliferation.

It may well be that Tehran does ultimately aspire to produce not just nuclear electricity, but also a few nuclear weapons to deter the aggression that others keep threatening to launch. But no one claims that it is doing so now. Indeed, the day before Khalilzad and Casey spoke, IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei told CNN: “Have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.”

So, contrary to Casey’s declaration, the U.S. government is hardly conceding that “any country” meeting his stated criteria is acting in a manner “perfectly acceptable to us.” The Bush administration, instead, subjectively and unilaterally, is assessing the “record, rhetoric, policies and connections” of both Egypt and Iran, and pronouncing, in our wisdom, that the one may proceed down the nuclear road while the other may not.

No other possible conclusion can be drawn, since Iran, in pursuing, so far at least, merely a nuclear “capability,” is in fact in accord with its obligations under the NPT.

They’re fully within their rights to go that way.

Advertisement

159 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 greenmamba  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:20:53am
arguing that Iran has a right to seek nuclear weapons.

I'm all for that. The right is limited to seeking in Iraq.

2 The Other Les  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:21:06am

[deleted]

3 Ben Hur  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:21:42am

What?

You didn't know they really meant no nukes for the US/Israel?

4 jcm  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:22:42am

And just what would a poet know about the subject?

5 DaMishMan  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:22:51am

Way to start off the work week. Let the moonbat bashing begin!

6 Dr. Shalit  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:23:01am

It's the Politics, STUPID!

-S-

7 EC Marm  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:23:20am
a writing fellow with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War


I would say that once Iran secures 'the bomb' that you can move the doomsday clock to 11:59:59 but somehow this muckin' foron thinks that Iran has the right to take the world to the brink?

8 Iron Fist  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:23:22am

They aren't anti-war. They are simply on the other side, and they'd like for us to surrender.

9 Tenacious  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:23:34am

It's kinda weird. I think I'm smarter than most Nobel Laureates.

10 Clay Jarr  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:23:53am

The logical conclusion of reason abandoned. We may choose to ignore reason, but reason never ignores us.

11 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:24:00am

I tried following his pretzel logic for a few moments but, it bruised my brain.

12 GregInSeattle  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:24:19am

How do you describe people like this? Hi is a very liberal, anti-religion, pro peace "activist", yet he's supporting a 12th century, very ill-liberal religious government's right to obtain nukes.

13 BeerForMyHorses  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:24:22am

Nuclear Apartheid? Is there any ludicrous analogy the left will not make?

14 zombie  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:24:47am
Daley is a nuclear freeze advocate who’s in favor of Iran having nuclear bombs; a non-proliferation activist who sees nothing wrong with this kind of proliferation.

This merely reveals what has always been true: the "peace" movement is not much about peace, but about diarming the West and the United States, so that we can be overthrown and dismantled.

It was this way in the '60 during Vietnam, in the '70s with the anti-nuke movement, all the way up to now with Iraq.

The very concept of the "peace movement" is a euphemism for anti-Americanism, and always has been.

15 Ben Hur  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:24:49am

It's the same logic that leads them to be against oil drilling on US soil, but not on someone else's.

Burn our flag? Yeah! Burn there's? Racism!

Nuke waste here? NO! Nuke waste there? Yeah!

Oh!

I may have stumbled onto to something.

Let's offer to store all of the nuke waste of all current and future "peaceful" Arab/Muslim Dictatorship STates' nuke programs!

Then maybe they'll be against it!

16 jcm  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:25:26am

re: #11 MandyManners

I tried following his pretzel logic for a few moments but, it bruised my brain.

Is a chiropractor for the brain, my got out of alignment.

17 Clay Jarr  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:25:36am

...and if you can understand Daley's type of anti-logic...Thank Kant!

18 zombie  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:25:38am

re: #8 Iron Fist

They aren't anti-war. They are simply on the other side, and they'd like for us to surrender.

Correct. Much more succinct than my version.

19 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:25:47am
20 zombie  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:26:14am

re: #12 GregInSeattle

How do you describe people like this? Hi is a very liberal, anti-religion, pro peace "activist", yet he's supporting a 12th century, very ill-liberal religious government's right to obtain nukes.

The word is "moonbat."

21 Ben Hur  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:26:40am

re: #17 Clay Jarr

...and if you can understand Daley's type of anti-logic...Thank Kant!

No need for that type of language!

LOL!

22 zombie  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:26:51am

re: #14 zombie

diarming = disarming.

PIMF

23 Ben Hur  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:26:53am

must work!

24 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:26:58am

re: #16 jcm

It's a bad thing this early on a Monday.

25 Owl  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:27:03am

I know it's been said before,................but if they want nukes, I say we give them a couple.

26 Clay Jarr  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:27:21am

#9 Tenacious

It's kinda weird. I think I'm smarter than most Nobel Laureates.

Don't sell yourself so short.

27 Ben Hur  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:27:25am

BEfore I go.

I think Pamela is obsessing.

Another Beilin post.

28 Ben Hur  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:28:14am

Oh, and The Pope is coming to the US.

29 jcm  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:28:49am

re: #24 MandyManners

re: #16 jcm

It's a bad thing this early on a Monday.

Really bad, I have do analysis on data collected over the weekend.

30 lawhawk  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:28:55am

Actually, once Iran goes nuclear, which is likely in 2009 (or sooner, depending on how many thousands more centrifuge cascades come online), the doomsday clock will hit 0. They wont bother with a celebration or announcement.

The announcement will be a mushroom cloud over one of their enemy's cities or countries.

It might be Tel Aviv.

Or it could be Baghdad. Saudi Arabia. Bahrain. UAE. Kuwait. Amman. Cairo. A major European city. Or even a city in the US.

What makes Iran so dangerous is that they're playing with a different set of rules. MAD depended on two countries who were rational and played by the same rules.

MAD doesn't apply when one nation thinks it rational to blow everyone up to satisfy an ideological position - the religious visions of their leadership. To them, it would be completely rational to nuke enemy cities, even if it meant the complete and utter destruction of Iran because they'd be fulfilling their religious obligations.

Diplomats continue to make this mistake in thinking that the Iranians have the same goals as we do. This isn't North Korea's L'il Kim, who is using nukes as a means of extortion to continue rule. His gameplan is to continue his cozy life while everything goes to heck in his country.

Ahmadinejad and the mad mullahs have a different sort of future in mind.

31 Dead Sea Squirrel  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:30:07am

He speaks of the subjectivity of our treatment of Egypt, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other, referring to

the double standard between our expectations for countries we like, and those for countries we don't like.

This assumes that our "liking" and "disliking" are based on some selfish whim of ours, and has nothing to do with things like, oh, madmen with apocalyptic fantasies of suicidal glory dancing in their heads on the one hand versus reasonably sane men on the other.

Someone once said that the reason so many intellectuals are liberals is that it takes a lot of cleverness to convince yourself that the obvious is not true.

32 zombie  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:30:49am

God, I just tried to read the article, and it was like a scene from a horror film where you peek into the killer's skull and it's filled with writhing, festering worms instead of a brain.

/shudder

33 Ojoe  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:30:59am

"You are not familiar with the focusing disintegrater ray?"

Idiot.

34 JammieWearingFool  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:31:04am

A Democrat Congressman and a NY Times op-ed push for Al Jazeera English to be cleared on more U.S. cable systems.

Not allowing it here amounts to Neo-McCarthyism.

Comparative courses in how Al Jazeera, CNN, the BBC and U.S. networks portray the Iraq war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be taught in all U.S. high schools and colleges. Al Jazeera English should be widely available.

We just don't get enough propaganda as it is already.

35 winston06  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:31:24am

Check his bank account... He might be getting money from the Iranian regime

36 Lively  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:31:36am

re: #31 Dead Sea Squirrel

Love your nic.

37 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:31:46am

re: #29 jcm

re: #24 MandyManners


re: #16 jcm

It's a bad thing this early on a Monday.


Really bad, I have do analysis on data collected over the weekend.

All I have to do is clean the house from top to bottom, do about three loads of laundry, clear off my desk, go to the bank and do some other things that escape me.

38 alibey  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:32:13am

OT

Seditious anti-war protesters use kids as human shields
see my previous post

39 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:32:54am

re: #30 lawhawk

I miss the Soviet Union.

40 bald headed geek  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:33:08am

I posted on this on my blog, too. This guy must have a severe headache now from all of the mental gyrations he had to engage in to arrive at this conclusion.

BHG

41 Owl  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:33:13am

Hopefully the gains made in Afganistan and Iraq will prove their worth when we launch our attack on Iran. WMD's or not, the only reason I can see us going into Iraq is to box in Iran and hit them from all sides. I've said it since we went into Iraq. Freeing the Iraqi people is just a very pleasant and noble side effect of getting into position to take out the lead dog.....

at least I hope so....'cause I agree that if we let them get a nuke, they will use it asap to wipe out Tel Aviv, NY, or Washington- or they'll die trying( which I'd much prefer of course).

the day we stop Iran, I'm having a party at my house and you're all invited.

42 Ojoe  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:33:44am

The most moral people should have the biggest weapons, otherwise the evil will prey upon the weak.

The possibility of nukes was designed into the universe, we were meant to develop them, meaning we not them.

It is a perversion of the intent of the Creator to let places like Iran have them, IMHO.

43 Ringo the Gringo  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:34:00am

To paraphrase Mark Steyn: Nukes are only dangerous when they're in the hands of maniacs like Reagan or Thatcher.

44 bald headed geek  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:34:02am

re: #30 lawhawk

Well said. So, so, SO well said.

BHG

45 wahabicorridor  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:34:18am

re: #17 Clay Jarr

...and if you can understand Daley's type of anti-logic...Thank Kant!

Kant Think.

46 Shug  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:35:00am

Indeed, the day before Khalilzad and Casey spoke, the mushroom cloud was seen over Tel aviv IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei told CNN: “Have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.”


fixed

47 Ringo the Gringo  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:35:10am

I wasn't around here this past weekend, was there a Norman Mailer thread that I missed?

48 lawhawk  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:35:46am

re: #39 MandyManners

I don't. And neither do the hundreds of millions who suffered as a result of that heinous regime. Islamists have definitely made things more interesting - and dangerous.

49 wahabicorridor  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:38:00am

re: #40 bald headed geek

I posted on this on my blog, too. This guy must have a severe headache now from all of the mental gyrations he had to engage in to arrive at this conclusion.

BHG


My guess is that he 'arrived at the conclusion' before he came up with the rational.

50 gymnast  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:38:03am

There are highly professional and technical analysis of the above type of type of reason and logic that is used in the above cited article by Nobel prize winner Tad Daley. Distilled to it's essence, here is a translation.

"Some irrational nihilist shitbirds write stuff for others to read. Some people who are crazier than a shit house rat admire the raving lunatic articles. They are usually Democrats"

51 Andy Dufresne  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:38:21am

Yet another example of a left-wing moonbat professor talking about the real world, when he belongs back in his dusty ivory tower office writing articles on make believe abstract issues no one in the real world will ever read or care about.

52 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:38:31am

re: #47 Ringo the Gringo

I wasn't around here this past weekend, was there a Norman Mailer thread that I missed?

He's dead, Jim.

53 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:39:11am

re: #48 lawhawk

re: #39 MandyManners

I don't. And neither do the hundreds of millions who suffered as a result of that heinous regime. Islamists have definitely made things more interesting - and dangerous.

I shoulda' said I miss MAD.

54 Nevergiveup  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:39:35am

I think the poet is right. Iran has every right to lie, steal, deceive, and build any type of bomb they want. On the other hand rational, sane ( OK semi-sane ) people such as me and the other neo-cons out here have the same right to introduce the Iranians and all their friends to g-d Almighty and the after world!

55 Ringo the Gringo  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:40:21am

re: #52 MandyManners

He's dead, Jim

.


Well, he had it coming.

56 realwest  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:40:46am

re: #28 Ben Hur Is she as wrong with this one as she has been with ALL of her others (including the "rant" at Gates of Vienna)?

57 JammieWearingFool  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:41:05am

re: #47 Ringo the Gringo

I wasn't around here this past weekend, was there a Norman Mailer thread that I missed?

I did a quick post on Mailer, but didn't see one here.

I think the editors at the NYT are still weeping.

58 FlyingTigress  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:41:43am

re: #32 zombie

There's a voice mail for you, Z, from a killer with a skull-full of decaying worms.

He's insulted by the analogy.

59 FlyingTigress  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:43:06am

re: #57 JammieWearingFool

Tore their clothes, poured ashes on themselves, and are wailing at the top of their collective lungs, are they?

60 chinesearithmetic  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:43:18am

I'm sure this will upset the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, unless it disarmed when the Warsaw Pact packed, as I suspect.

61 EC Marm  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:43:39am

re: #30 lawhawk
The quandary is:

The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic clockface maintained since 1947 by the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago.


Versus the opinion of:

a writing fellow with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War


I think I'll stick with the opinion of nuclear scientists.

62 realwest  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:43:56am

OTre: #33 Ojoe Hey my friend! You posted a comment on the Veterans Day thread yesterday, to the effect that there was only one V.C. awarded to the fighter pilots of Great Britain and I said I found that astounding and shameful.
I also asked if you knew how many VC's were awarded at the battle of Roarke's Drift against the zulus, but y'all had moved on by the time I got to post that!

63 bald headed geek  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:44:09am

re: #49 wahabicorridor

Kind of like the Global Warming crowd.

BHG

64 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:44:55am

A poet? Named Tad?

Oh yeah, he's an authority on nuclear proliferation.

/not

65 bald headed geek  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:45:07am

re: #52 MandyManners

I'm a doctor, not a.................oh, never mind.

BHG

66 mad_scientist  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:45:55am
“Have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.”

So we have to wait until they have enough material for a weapon, or even as far as active weapons program that produces nukes? The UN is useless......they will not act until the MISSILE is in the air.

67 rob.schmitt  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:46:23am

He is not "Anti-Nuclear"; he is merely "Anti-America".

68 jcm  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:46:49am

re: #45 wahabicorridor

re: #17 Clay Jarr

...and if you can understand Daley's type of anti-logic...Thank Kant!

Kant Think.

I did my philosophy final blue book essay exam on Kant, got a straight A. Never told the prof I never got around to reading Kant.

69 bikermailman  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:46:59am

re: #12 GregInSeattle

How do you describe people like this? Hi is a very liberal, anti-religion, pro peace "activist", yet he's supporting a 12th century, very ill-liberal religious government's right to obtain nukes.

How much do you want to be he followed some of the same people Hillary followed back in the 60s?

70 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:47:12am

Lockheed Gets $2.3M Navy Ship Deal

NEW YORK (Associated Press) - Lockheed Martin Corp., the world's largest military contractor, said Monday the U.S. Navy recently awarded a $2.3 million contract to continue preliminary design work for a next-generation combat ship for the Israeli government.

Lockheed will work with the U.S. and Israeli navies to develop technical requirements for the so-called Littoral Combat Ship-I combat system. The ship, which can operate in shallow waters and close to the shore, has increased maneuverability and speed and can be easily reconfigured for surveillance, minesweeping and special operations.

America helping the Zionists' military...

71 BeerForMyHorses  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:47:38am

re: #66 mad_scientist

“Have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.”

So we have to wait until they have enough material for a weapon, or even as far as active weapons program that produces nukes? The UN is useless......they will not act until the MISSILE is in the air.

At which point they will only ask for their brown pants.

72 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:48:00am
Nobel Peace laureate Tad Daley, a writing fellow with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War destruction of Israel and the West, has a piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer arguing that Iran has a right to seek nuclear weapons.

Fixed.

73 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:48:15am

re: #55 Ringo the Gringo

re: #52 MandyManners


He's dead, Jim

.


Well, he had it coming.

It's the human condition.

74 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:49:55am

re: #64 Ward Cleaver

A poet? Named Tad?

Oh yeah, he's an authority on nuclear proliferation.

/not

There was a young poet named Tad...

75 bulbasaur  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:50:16am

LEFTISTS were AGAINST the NUCLEAR ARMS RACE before they were FOR IT.

76 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:50:44am

re: #65 bald headed geek

re: #52 MandyManners

I'm a doctor, not a.................oh, never mind.

BHG

A book reviewer for the NYT?

77 bald headed geek  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:50:57am

re: #70 NJDhockeyfan

Will Israel survive long enough to get to use this ship? Dhimmi Olmert would certainly seem to have other plans................

BHG

78 jonturner  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:51:29am
but also a few nuclear weapons to deter the aggression that others keep threatening to launch


He has admitted weapons can prevent violence.

Maybe he should go off an write some nice little poems about it.

79 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:51:39am

re: #66 mad_scientist

“Have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.”

So we have to wait until they have enough material for a weapon, or even as far as active weapons program that produces nukes? The UN is useless......they will not act until the MISSILE is in the air.

They won't even act THEN. Besides, *what* can the UN actually do other than issue strongly worded letters?

80 wahabicorridor  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:51:52am

re: #68 jcm

re: #45 wahabicorridor


re: #17 Clay Jarr

...and if you can understand Daley's type of anti-logic...Thank Kant!

Kant Think.

I did my philosophy final blue book essay exam on Kant, got a straight A. Never told the prof I never got around to reading Kant.

I did mine on Bergson. Got a B+. Never read him, either!

81 Ojoe  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:52:54am

re: #62 realwest

How many? I don't know, and I have not heard of that battle. I'll go back and check.

Also it is not too suprising that few pilots get the highest medals, because as a pilot you are usually dead outright, or you survive without a scratch, and also it is harder, especially for pilots of single seaters, for others to see how you are acting in a battle; there are great separations of distance in the air.

82 ChildOfMary  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:53:24am

re: #31 Dead Sea Squirrel

Someone once said that the reason so many intellectuals are liberals is that it takes a lot of cleverness to convince yourself that the obvious is not true.

Never heard that one before but it says it so well. Thanks.

83 bald headed geek  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:53:40am

re: #74 MandyManners

There was a young fellow named Tad,
whose opinion of the West was entired bad,
He sang the praises of Iran
which according to his plan,
had the right to get nukes and make Israelis sad.

Sorry, it's the best I come up with for now!

BHG

84 christheprofessor  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:53:49am
They’re fully within their rights to go that way.

And we're fully within our rights to prevent those nutjobs from getting them. As John Bolton said, when dealing with people who want to live in the afterlife, classical approaches to deterrence don't work...

85 Ringo the Gringo  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:53:51am

re: #57 JammieWearingFool

I think the editors at the NYT are still weeping.

Well, at least one person at the NY Times isn't weeping.

86 stvip  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:54:21am

I'd like to read a poem of his, conjuring his best lyrical inspiration to describe how the world would be like today had Israel not destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor.

I apologize for not responding to those who had replied to my posts about anti-Islam bigotry on LGF. It's somewhat problematic discussing a single subject here with the ephemeral nature of the threads, but I believe this is one of the most important topics to discuss, so I won't leave you waiting too long. Those who've shown an honest and mature interest can also email me.

87 bald headed geek  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:54:28am

re: #76 MandyManners

I think that we should send some tribbles after this guy.

BHG

88 ChildOfMary  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:55:29am

re: #11 MandyManners

I tried following his pretzel logic for a few moments but, it bruised my brain.

Wobbles the mind and makes my hair hurt.

89 christheprofessor  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:56:17am

re: #88 ChildOfMary

Made my brain quiver and pull away from my eyes...

90 realwest  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 8:56:21am

re: #8 Iron Fist Absolutely spot on post. I'd just change "like" to "love"!
Seriously great post, succinct and to the point!

91 Doda McCheesle  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:00:51am

Of course, he never questions why the country sitting on the worlds third largest oil and gas reserves needs to put billions of dollars they can't really afford and years of work into nuclear energy....

(ya don't suppose he says nuke-yuh-ler too?)

92 Defector01  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:01:20am

I guess that group's angling for another Nobel Peace Prize - because they did so much to earn one in the mid 80s by trying to prevent the US from having new missiles but letting the Soviets have them without a peep. I just hope that at some point in hte middle of hte night it'll dawn on him, that last synapse in his brain will connect correctly and he'll realize what an ass he sounds like

93 realwest  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:01:49am

re: #81 Ojoe The fight at Roarke's Drift was the subject of the movie ZULU which was - excepting the usual hollywooding - pretty accurate.
About 100 British troops beat off attack after attack by about 2-3 thousand Zulu's and iirc, there were 11 Victoria Crosses given out to the British defenders.

94 ruexperienced  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:02:52am

re: #66 mad_scientist

“Have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.”

So we have to wait until they have enough material for a weapon, or even as far as active weapons program that produces nukes? The UN is useless......they will not act until the MISSILE is in the air.

Actually, they will wait until the missile or weapon is detonated over Tel Aviv or a major western city, then start whining about the "disproportionate" response, right after Israel or the US turns the middle east into the largest glass coffee table ever seen...

95 LoFlyer  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:05:10am

From the past performance of Israel in destroying the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear reactors, is there any doubt that Israel will attack Iran before it gets the bomb? From what we are reading, the US is gearing up for a strike against Iran. Example: the recent 80 million dollar project by the Air Force to equip B-2's with bomb bay brackets that will support 15 thousand pound bunker busters good for 300 feet of ground penetration. Iran is not backing down in their quest for nuclear weapons, and neither will the US or Israel. Mr. Daley is merely setting up the lefty liberals moral platform for supporting Iran's bid for the nuclear war against Israel.

96 ChildOfMary  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:05:30am

re: #12 GregInSeattle

How do you describe people like this? Hi is a very liberal, anti-religion, pro peace "activist", yet he's supporting a 12th century, very ill-liberal religious government's right to obtain nukes.

The government that wants the nukes is anti-American and anti-Western Civilization, therefore they deserve nukes. That's the standard. That explains everything.

97 Macker  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:05:51am

re: #94 ruexperienced

"Disproportionate" because the Iranian weapon will be what, 20 kilotons at that? And the response would be more than just a few megatons!

98 sh007r  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:05:56am

How do these fools sleep at night?
Utter lack of morals or principles? Total lack of intelligent comprehension in a post 1776 world? Brain diseases?
.
Just ...wow.

99 bikermailman  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:07:30am

re: #85 Ringo the Gringo

re: #57 JammieWearingFool


I think the editors at the NYT are still weeping.

Well, at least one person at the NY Times isn't weeping.

Wow. Just wow.

100 ruexperienced  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:09:15am

re: #98 sh007r

How do these fools sleep at night?
Utter lack of morals or principles? Total lack of intelligent comprehension in a post 1776 world? Brain diseases?
.
Just ...wow.

It's called "willful ignorance" or in 20th century terms, blatant appeasement of a genocidal threat.

"Peace in our time ! Peace in our time !

/my ass

101 jcm  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:10:47am

re: #93 realwest

re: #81 Ojoe The fight at Roarke's Drift was the subject of the movie ZULU which was - excepting the usual hollywooding - pretty accurate.
About 100 British troops beat off attack after attack by about 2-3 thousand Zulu's and iirc, there were 11 Victoria Crosses given out to the British defenders.

VDH used Roarke's Drift in Carnage and Culture as an example of Western discipline, and war fighter vs. the more tribal style war fighting. Excellent book if you haven't read it.

102 deseeded  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:12:09am

Scientists and thinkers of the world should be ashamed that these supposed Laureates, holders of what were once the most prestigious awards given to people of the international community, discard all rational thought in favor of reactionary incitement.

There should be a clause in which a Nobel prize could be taken away if the holder fails to uphold the very basis of what he/she won it.

In the meantime, we should keep a list using asterisks next to winners to denote douchebags and liars.

103 ruexperienced  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:12:21am

re: #97 Macker

re: #94 ruexperienced

"Disproportionate" because the Iranian weapon will be what, 20 kilotons at that? And the response would be more than just a few megatons!

As far as I'm concerned, if Iran nukes a western city, through direct action or proxy (the latter much more likely), the Islamist nutbags will write their own epitaph.

104 toonman  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:12:49am
IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei told CNN: “Have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.”

This is the same guy that had absolutely no idea that Syria had anything nuclear going on at all. We're supposed to listen to what he says about Iran? If anything, we should be looking at the exact opposite of what he believes!

105 christheprofessor  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:15:00am

#102 deseeded

In the meantime, we should keep a list using asterisks next to winners to denote douchebags and liars.

Sorta like the New England Patriots...

106 1389  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:16:34am

re: #93 realwest

re: #81 Ojoe The fight at Roarke's Drift was the subject of the movie ZULU which was - excepting the usual hollywooding - pretty accurate.
About 100 British troops beat off attack after attack by about 2-3 thousand Zulu's and iirc, there were 11 Victoria Crosses given out to the British defenders.

A fascinating study of leadership and resourcefulness in warfare.

107 RememberSekhmet?  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:16:55am

Considering much of the "nuclear freeze" movement's actual origins, I am hardly surprised. Wasn't there someone recently who talked about the movement's origin with the KGB? It's more like a "No Nukes for the US" movement.

108 mad_scientist  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:19:42am

re: #103 ruexperienced

re: #97 Macker


re: #94 ruexperienced

"Disproportionate" because the Iranian weapon will be what, 20 kilotons at that? And the response would be more than just a few megatons!


As far as I'm concerned, if Iran nukes a western city, through direct action or proxy (the latter much more likely), the Islamist nutbags will write their own epitaph.

I agree. They should be put on notice that use of a nuclear weapon on Israel, the US or any of our allies, will mean the TOTAL DESCIMATION of their country.

They, however, may not believe we have the will to do it, and will attack anyway.....sometimes I wonder if we have the guts to do it as well......

109 1389  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:20:33am

re: #30 lawhawk

Actually, once Iran goes nuclear, which is likely in 2009 (or sooner, depending on how many thousands more centrifuge cascades come online), the doomsday clock will hit 0. They wont bother with a celebration or announcement.

The announcement will be a mushroom cloud over one of their enemy's cities or countries.

It might be Tel Aviv.

Or it could be Baghdad. Saudi Arabia. Bahrain. UAE. Kuwait. Amman. Cairo. A major European city. Or even a city in the US.

What makes Iran so dangerous is that they're playing with a different set of rules. MAD depended on two countries who were rational and played by the same rules.

MAD doesn't apply when one nation thinks it rational to blow everyone up to satisfy an ideological position - the religious visions of their leadership. To them, it would be completely rational to nuke enemy cities, even if it meant the complete and utter destruction of Iran because they'd be fulfilling their religious obligations.

Diplomats continue to make this mistake in thinking that the Iranians have the same goals as we do. This isn't North Korea's L'il Kim, who is using nukes as a means of extortion to continue rule. His gameplan is to continue his cozy life while everything goes to heck in his country.

Ahmadinejad and the mad mullahs have a different sort of future in mind.

You are right. Ahmadinejad and the mullahs are exceedingly dangerous! They do NOT have anything remotely similar to our mindset, or even that of the former Soviet Union.

You may want to listen to: Sen. Rick Santorum's speech at OU, which covers exactly this issue.

It's a long speech, but worth listening to the whole thing.

110 Deseeded  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:20:45am

re: #105 christheprofessor

I've been waiting for a joke that starts off like:

What does Yassir Arafat, Al Gore, Barry Bonds, and the Patriots have in common?

111 Elydo  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:21:13am

I can't remember who said it, hopefully someone can confirm with the correct name, but [a representative of the middle east] has already blatantly come out and said that they do not fear a nuclear exchange, because a nuclear strike on Israel would do more damage to Israel as a whole than a strike on the middle east, which would leave most of the middle east untouched.

Yeah, let's let them get the capability.

Lack of knowledge of fallout patterns, EM pulses, overpressure waves, hell everything to do with any strategic nuclear strike is astounding me. Most of the current generation, ourselves included, have no actual idea what a strategic nuclear weapon does. We know it ephemerally, we've seen the videos, heard the accounts. In some cases studied the effects. But we lack the vital part of knowledge; experience. The anti-nuke crowd don't really know why nukes are bad, or why countries that don't want to be threatened by them need them, we don't know what a nuclear strike on any target in the world would really be like. And the dark-age zealots in the sandy asshole at the middle of most maps for damn sure have no idea what they're pissing on about as they flail their hands in the air.

112 ChildOfMary  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:22:48am

re: #98 sh007r

How do these fools sleep at night?
Utter lack of morals or principles? Total lack of intelligent comprehension in a post 1776 world? Brain diseases?
.
Just ...wow.

They sleep very well because they know in their hearts they are correct and those who disagree are poor fools. They never question their beliefs -- they cannot ever be wrong, even when they are logically contradicting themselves.

113 ChildOfMary  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:25:52am

re: #103 ruexperienced

re: #97 Macker


re: #94 ruexperienced

"Disproportionate" because the Iranian weapon will be what, 20 kilotons at that? And the response would be more than just a few megatons!


As far as I'm concerned, if Iran nukes a western city, through direct action or proxy (the latter much more likely), the Islamist nutbags will write their own epitaph.

Hope so, really hope the West still has the will for that -- but sometimes I have this nagging doubt

114 jcm  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:28:31am

re: #109 1389

Bolton nailed the issues re: Iran.

“When you have a regime that would be happier in the afterlife than in this life, this is not a regime that is subject to classic theories of deterrence. Retaliation for them, which would obliterate their society, doesn’t have the same negative connotations for their leadership."
115 Elydo  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:29:05am

re: #108 mad_scientist

Decimation is really misused these days. It literally means to kill one tenth of a given population, it was a punitive measure enacted by the romans for their version of terrorist attacks. Identify the village the militants came from, march a legion down there and kill every tenth man in line.

When you think about it, it's a pretty limited response, but certainly enough to enact shaaijinpai.

116 ChildOfMary  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:34:36am

re: #114 jcm

re: #109 1389

Bolton nailed the issues re: Iran.


“When you have a regime that would be happier in the afterlife than in this life, this is not a regime that is subject to classic theories of deterrence. Retaliation for them, which would obliterate their society, doesn’t have the same negative connotations for their leadership."

Saw Bolton on Fox yesterday. He has a book out "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations". He spoke about how concerned he is with the turn Bush has taken lately -- he believes Bush has strayed from his earlier focus and resolve. Many of us here have noticed it -- Condi has said some really absurd things the last few months. Bolton doesn't think it's too late to turn back, but he didn't sound optimistic. Frankly, neither am I.

117 stvip  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:36:03am

re: #111 Elydo

I can't remember who said it, hopefully someone can confirm with the correct name, but [a representative of the middle east] has already blatantly come out and said that they do not fear a nuclear exchange, because a nuclear strike on Israel would do more damage to Israel as a whole than a strike on the middle east

That was Rafsanjani. He was speaking specifically about the "Muslim world", not the Middle East. It is important to know who this is - not some random hotheaded imam-celebrity, but a high-ranking influential ayatollah who served as the Iranian president for close to a decade.

[Link: www.iran-press-service.com...]

Also, for people like lawhawk who suggested Iran will detonate a nuclear device immediately - they don't even have to do so in order to cause immense damage. Possession of a nuclear weapon can grant them near impunity in stepping up their efforts to destabilize Sunni states and export the Shia Islamic revolution. The negative effect on Israel would also be obvious. Once they've finished with that, they may very well detonate the bombs. Or they might never, or they might immediately - hard to predict the actions of irrational, messianic agents. Nazi Germany sacrificed the extremely precious resource of railways and the money and people to maintain them operational in order to continue shipping Jews to death camps. It was not a rational policy.

118 kevinmumaw  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:37:29am

re: #4 jcm

Because the poets will lead the way, man...like...yeah.

119 jcm  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:40:20am

re: #118 kevinmumaw

re: #4 jcm

Because the poets will lead the way, man...like...yeah.

You bogarting the joint again? ;-)

120 TMF  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:40:30am

I suspect this man has no children

121 neocon hippie  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:40:51am

re: #99 bikermailman

re: #85 Ringo the Gringo

re: #57 JammieWearingFool


I think the editors at the NYT are still weeping.


Well, at least one person at the NY Times isn't weeping.

Wow. Just wow.

Norman Mailer was a flat-out sociopath. And for the many who blame the Baby Boomers for everything that has gone awry about America, Mailer was a member of the Greatest Generation and old enough to be the Boomers' father.

122 Elydo  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:42:30am

re: #117 stvip

Many thanks. Yeah, I knew he wasn't just a random voice, that he was among the 'spokesperson' grouping, but not who he was.

And the regimes that worry us need not actually develop a weapons capability, by merely developing the nuclear material they could then outsource it to fringe groups and splinter factions to then utilise further. Given the fact that Iran has been caught, several times, aiding and abetting the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, an Act of War upon America by Iran, nation to nation, that is receiving next to no attention by America's media or populace, well, let's just say I wouldn't be surprised to find a nuclear terrorist attack being apologised for if there was enough wiggle room for the left to squirm away from the implications. The only solace is the fact that Israel won't wait long enough for the rest of the western world to appease it into destruction.

123 jcm  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:44:04am

re: #116 ChildOfMary

re: #114 jcm

re: #109 1389

Bolton nailed the issues re: Iran.


“When you have a regime that would be happier in the afterlife than in this life, this is not a regime that is subject to classic theories of deterrence. Retaliation for them, which would obliterate their society, doesn’t have the same negative connotations for their leadership."

Saw Bolton on Fox yesterday. He has a book out "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations". He spoke about how concerned he is with the turn Bush has taken lately -- he believes Bush has strayed from his earlier focus and resolve. Many of us here have noticed it -- Condi has said some really absurd things the last few months. Bolton doesn't think it's too late to turn back, but he didn't sound optimistic. Frankly, neither am I.

I am afraid what will take the West in general to really focus on the issue is going to be a one day death toll to remake anything else in history pale by comparison.

124 ChildOfMary  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:46:05am

re: #111 Elydo

I can't remember who said it, hopefully someone can confirm with the correct name, but [a representative of the middle east] has already blatantly come out and said that they do not fear a nuclear exchange, because a nuclear strike on Israel would do more damage to Israel as a whole than a strike on the middle east, which would leave most of the middle east untouched.

This kind of thinking is what makes the enemy so dangerous. Some of them have also said that they recognize many innocent Muslims would die if they struck Israel, but that would be OK, even desirable, because by dying in that way the victims would be assured of a place in Paradise -- and that is the highest goal for any individual Muslim. And those who caused the deaths with their attack would not be viewed negatively at the time of Judgement for killing fellow Muslims because, again, their action ensured their fellow Muslims would enter Heaven. They do not have the same desire for life those raised under other cultures have -- it's very hard for many of us to relate to that attitude, but we must realize that they really believe what they say.

125 DJ Wahaba  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:48:16am

Tad dear,

Have you forgotten yet another time your daily dose of Thorazine?

As a respect for a thinking... organism I'd like to think so because really... no, really...

126 ruexperienced  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:51:40am

re: #110 Deseeded

re: #105 christheprofessor

What does Yassir Arafat, Al Gore, Barry Bonds, and the Patriots have in common?

re: #123 jcm

re: #116 ChildOfMary

re: #114 jcm

re: #109 1389

I am afraid what will take the West in general to really focus on the issue is going to be a one day death toll to remake anything else in history pale by comparison.

That's what I thought 9/11 would do.

But I look at 9/11 differently than most.

It wasn't the fact 3,000 people were killed.

It's the fact it was the attempted murder of hundreds of thousands.

You can thank the FDNY, PAPD and NYPD they didn't succeed in that regard.

The next time they will try to kill MILLIONS with some kind of nuke.

And that's why we must stop nuclear proliferation at ALL costs.

A message COMPLETELY lost on the moonbats and BDS victims the world over.

127 mad_scientist  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:53:53am

re: #115 Elydo

re: #108 mad_scientist

Decimation is really misused these days. It literally means to kill one tenth of a given population, it was a punitive measure enacted by the romans for their version of terrorist attacks. Identify the village the militants came from, march a legion down there and kill every tenth man in line.

When you think about it, it's a pretty limited response, but certainly enough to enact shaaijinpai.

If that is true, I say we would need much more of a response that that as well.

128 kevinmumaw  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:56:45am

re: #119 jcm

re: #118 kevinmumaw


re: #4 jcm

Because the poets will lead the way, man...like...yeah.


You bogarting the joint again? ;-)

You can't, like, bogart a joint, man. A joint can't be property. It belongs to all the people, man.

129 ROPMA  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:57:09am

THREE CONJECTURES this is the best description of what will happen to islam if they get nukes

130 stvip  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 9:57:59am

re: #122 Elydo

The only solace is the fact that Israel won't wait long enough for the rest of the western world to appease it into destruction.

Unfortunately, an attack by Israel won't be as simple as the Osiraq raid, or the recent Syrian one.
It would be much better if it were to be executed by the US. Any retaliation from Iran would then serve as justification to cripple their oil refinery capacity (this should be easy, and combined with a boycott from the Netherlands, that would leave them without any refined oil), destroy as much military equipment as conveniently possible and take out the theocracy regime institutions. More damage (electricity infrastructure, complete destruction of the military) will follow if Iran persists in harming Western interests in revenge.

131 Clay Jarr  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 10:06:19am

#68 jcm

re: #45 wahabicorridor

re: #17 Clay Jarr

...and if you can understand Daley's type of anti-logic...Thank Kant!

Kant Think.

I did my philosophy final blue book essay exam on Kant, got a straight A. Never told the prof I never got around to reading Kant.

Ah, the beauty of Kant: It just doesn't matter. The philosophy works great in academia, where ideas exist for the sake of ideas. It's just that that pesky reality thing gets in the way in the..well..real world.

132 Gordon Marock  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 10:11:32am

I completely agree that as a sovereign nation, Iran has the right to pursue nuclear weapons. The corollary is that the US has the right to use military force to prevent this from happening. End of debate. Hope that helps.

133 opnion  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 10:15:57am

re: #8 Iron Fist

They aren't anti-war. They are simply on the other side, and they'd like for us to surrender.


Bingo

134 Elydo  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 10:22:56am

mmanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, [some versions have 'Schopenhauer and Hegel']

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.

135 Jimmah  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 10:27:00am

As George Orwell pointed out way back in 1945, there are genuine pacifists, and there are phoney pacifists, who quite openly insist on one side - ours - laying down it's arms while encouraging the other side to take them up. These so called peaceniks say that our society isn't liberal or progressive enough, but in fact they don't admire liberalism or progressiveness at all, what they really admire is totalitarian violence.

136 Elydo  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 10:31:48am

re: #134 Elydo

Immanuel

PIMF

137 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 10:37:29am
138 Cpt. Disco  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 10:41:45am

One of my favorite things to do in my youth was to provide weapons to the schoolyard bullies. Beatings were much more efficient and permanent.

/To borrow a phrase from my barber... "Tad, who shit in your cheerios?"

139 smcg  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 10:42:39am

re: #106 1389 I believe 11 is correct. The most V.C.'s given for any single combat action of the British Empire. A great movie as well!

140 neverquit  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 10:46:30am

I just sent Mr. Daley the following:

I think it would be a good idea on your part to consider the current situation in Pakistan before reaching such an absurd conclusion as you have regarding Iran. The "Peaceful Transfer of Power" is but one of many important factors in determining whether or not a nation is responsible and mature enough to handle the possession of nuclear power, technology and weapons. Pakistan's AQ Khan and his proven treason to the security of Pakistan's nuclear program is yet another example of how irresponsible Pakistan has been with it's nuclear abilities. Pakistan has proven time and again, it is incapable peacefully transferring power or securing it's nuclear program. Do not make the same mistake with Iran.

Your assertion about, and I quote: "the double standard between our expectations for countries we like, and those for countries we don't like" is yet another absurd conclusion especially since you concede Iran's deceptive practices in the very next paragraph! Iran's deception and lies regarding it's nuclear program should be of paramount importance to someone who claims to be an advocate for the "prevention of nuclear war". "Liking" and "disliking" are petty and unreasonable terms to use in such a serious issue. Honestly, I expected more articulate words from a man with your reputation.

Sir, the real double standard and hypocrisy are apparent within your own words. The noble idea of supporting efforts for the prevention of nuclear war, yet finding the time to write this detritus without any words of condemnation for a country (Iran) that has proven itself deceptive in regards to it's allegedly peaceful pursuit of nuclear technology, as well as Iran's proven State Sponsorship of Islamic Terrorism, is a slap in the face of the cause you claim to support.

Kindest Regards,
*****
Long Island, NY

141 GreenSoccer  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 11:02:18am

And wantabe Columbine shooters and depressed and mentally ill goths and convicts also deserve to have machine guns and bullets, it's only fair afterall. Uh huh, uh huh, uh huh. Imagine a nodding head doll.

142 bald headed geek  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 11:20:17am

re: #137 buzzsawmonkey

Now THAT was good! I bow in all directions (since I don't really know where you are).

BHG

143 Peter_Wiggin  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 11:24:36am

Nobel Peace Prizes cause violence.

144 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 11:26:43am
145 rjschwarz  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 11:52:33am

I wonder how he'd feel about giving an insane person a hand gun? Or perhaps a person who has repeatedly threatened to kill his neighbor, should that person have a gun? I suspect we all know the answer.

146 CLLRusso  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 11:59:22am

re: #140 neverquit

Terrific. I gave you a +!

147 nikis-knight  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 12:03:10pm

re: #9 Tenacious

It's kinda weird. I think I'm smarter than most Nobel Laureates.

I have no idea who you are... but I would probably agree, and consider it a safe bet. ;)

148 tommygum  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 12:03:46pm

re: #129 ROPMA

I read the whole thing. Scary, indeed.

149 JakeSpiderMonkey  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 1:18:25pm

What is Tad Daley's problem? I thought all people in the "Peace Movement" wanted no war or bloodshed at all! The Moonbats and other "sub-humans"want to talk things out to their enemy. What stupidity! Didn't these people learn something in World War 2 history?

Sure, Nukes were introduced during W.W.2, & my late father & I had differences on the Bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, these Nukes are now here and if we have to use them against a rogue nation like Iran, we will. (My dad was a W.W.2 vet and wanted to end the war ASAP).

Anyway, if the US or Israel knocks out Iran's nuke program, I'll be on cloud 9! All hail Lord Cheney! (See last week's comic strips of "Doonesbury")

150 Maximu§  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 1:29:27pm

re: #12 GregInSeattle

How do you describe people like this? Hi is a very liberal, anti-religion, pro peace "activist", yet he's supporting a 12th century, very ill-liberal religious government's right to obtain nukes.

Well put Greg...Like Forest Gump said: Stupid-is-as-Stupid-does.

It means that an intelligent person who does stupid things is still stupid. You are what you do.

Maximu§
3/11 ACR

151 mattm  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 1:37:22pm

Moonbat logic makes my brain hurt.

152 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 2:50:34pm

This tortured hypocrisy is inevitable given the history and real nature of the anti-nuclear movement.
It was never really about eliminating nuclear weapons.
The movement was created by dedicated leftists during the Cold War to help the Soviet Union gain nuclear superiority over the west. Thanks to extensive media support, it acquired a life of its own and became a staple of left-wing media culture and its activist symbiotes.
Except to the navie fools who make up the rank and file, it is only natural that the movement would shift its allegiance to whatever nuclear-armed enemy happens to confront the west in general and the United States in particular.

153 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 3:21:36pm

In a remarkable example of unintended consequences, the eccentric (ie batshit crazy) but otherwise patriotic Howard Hughes played a major role in creating the broad-based anti-nuclear movment we know and loathe today.

According to Michael Drosnin's Citizen Hughes (based on documents stolen from a Hughes warehouse and proven in court to be authentic), Hughes paid lefty agitator Barry Commoner $100,000 to stir up demonstrations against the Nevada nuclear test site in 1968.
Commoner gave the word and thousands of brain-enslaved hippies obediently descended on Vegas, to deplore the (almost non-existent) contamination and other evil effects of underground nuke tests. This was a huge boost to a movement that had previously confined itself to Kremlin-inspired "Ban the Bomb" activities, especially in Europe.

The Vegas uprising broadened anti-nuke activism beyond its Red roots, and catalyzed its merger into the nascent environmental movement, thereby providing excellent cover and media access. It also introduced corporate funding for the movement, something the founders no doubt considered ironic to say the least.

Hughes' motive, incidentally, was simply to put pressure on the Atomic Energy Commission in a dispute over some sort of business deal. The AEC refused to cave, and Hughes never called off the hippies. The movement has never looked back.

154 Hard Right  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 4:12:07pm

IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei...who couldn't find his ass if it was full of uranium and he had a geiger counter...says he hasn't seen "an active weaponization program" in Iran. The same guy who demanded Israel tell them about Syrias nuke program because he didn't know anything about it?

Yeah, that sure proves Iran has no nuke program.
Being a leftist must be nice. Reality/facts don't support your "feelings"? Just ignore them or make up some that do!

155 siiras  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 4:45:08pm

In 2001, militant Maulana Inyadullah told a British reporter, “The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death.” That about sums up our problem.

Mohammed was a clever psychopath as many of them are. He needed followers who were willing to risk death to increase his own wealth and power. Their "payment" was going to be from Allah in the afterlife. Instead of building anything on this earth, improving their hard-scrabble lives, early Muslims were encouraged to kill and be killed for their faith.

Once dead, they would collect the highest reward they could dream of in a repressed society with raging appetites - the proverbial 72 virgins for men (interesting that it wasn't 72 houris who know their way around sexually but that's another story). Guess Mohammed didn't invent anything much for women as they were not expected to be warriors and already had heaven on earth - the "privilege" of servicing men (LOL). Though I've never seen it confirmed, one source claimed women deserving of a reward in heaven would be served (not serviced) by dwarfs...

This better dead than alive mentality is unfathomable to westerners though there have been a few wacky cults (Jim Jones etc) of this nature. Even if it's a small % of Muslims who prefer death to life in the hellholes they have made, that adds up to a daunting number out of a billion.

Please note, it doesn't even have to be a hellhole like the Palestinians have made. Most of the 9/11 bombers and their imitators had lived in the West. The British bombers actually grew up there.

Is there some way of notifying the Iranians who toppled the Shah (as an oppressor) and put the much more oppressive theocracy in his place that their mad mullahs wish to take them all to heaven? All those who don't agree, rise up again, for your lives this time?

156 EE  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 5:03:05pm

Tad Daley, the so-called "peace" activist and "anti-war" activist and "anti-nuke" activist and "anti-proliferation" activist turns out to be against peace and pro-war and pro-nukes and pro-proliferation, and gets his highs no doubt from the thought of Iran's coming efforts at nuclear genocide against Israel.

When Iran acquires nukes, its first target will of course be Israel, to establish its credibility regarding its nuclear jihad, and to gain the leadership position in the Muslim world. But after that, it will use its nukes to threaten countries, and its next target will be taking over the production of crude oil from the Persian Gulf. OPEC? Forget it. It will be Persia that calls the tunes, backed by its nuclear arsenal.

All of this no doubt excites faux "peace" activists like Tad Daley, and faux "anti-war" activists and faux "anti-nuke" activists and faux "anti-proliferation" activists like Tad Daley.

What a phoney this guy is.

The only purpose of his "anti-war" stance is to tie the hands of the US so that it cannot defend itself. As for Iran, Tad Daley is as pro-war as any shill for Iran, and as pro-nuke as any shill for Iran, and as pro-nuke and pro-proliferation as any shill for Iran.

157 Malleus Dei  Mon, Nov 12, 2007 7:42:41pm

re: #156 EE

The only purpose of his "anti-war" stance is to tie the hands of the US so that it cannot defend itself.

Congrats! You have figured out what the anti-war movement - actually it's the anti-America movement - is all about!

158 OneGyT  Tue, Nov 13, 2007 1:00:19pm

re: #12 GregInSeattle

How do you describe people like this? Hi is a very liberal, anti-religion, pro peace "activist", yet he's supporting a 12th century, very ill-liberal religious government's right to obtain nukes.

"Useful idiot" comes readily to mind.

159 profitsbeard  Tue, Nov 13, 2007 6:58:55pm

Terrorists need nukes too!

Double-jointed half-witted immoral imbecile.

I love to see these hypocritical contortionists breaking themselves to bits to pander to their BDS.

Scum.

Psychopathic suicidal scum.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Nobody to this day.


Tikatok Gift Cards - Capture your child's imagination . . . in a book!