Middle East Nuclear Dominos
Middle East Nuclear Dominos
Last week in an op-ed for the Boston Globe, I warned about Iran’s nuclear program and asked the following question: “The real danger is what happens next [in the region]. What do Iran’s rivals — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey — do if it declares itself a nuclear power?”
A partial answer to the question didn’t take long. The very next day, Gamal Mubarak, the son of Egypt’s president, announced in a public address that Egypt should begin its own nuclear power program:
The carefully crafted political speech raised the prospect of two potentially embarrassing developments for the White House at a time when the region is awash in crisis: a nuclear program in Egypt, recipient of about $2 billion a year in military and development aid from the United States, and Mr. Mubarak succeeding his father, Hosni Mubarak, as president without substantial political challenge.
Simply raising the topic of Egypt’s nuclear ambitions at a time of heightened tensions over Iran’s nuclear activity was received as a calculated effort to raise the younger Mr. Mubarak’s profile and to build public support through a show of defiance toward Washington, political analysts and foreign affairs experts said.
Egypt abandoned a nuclear weapons program in the 1970s and joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But with the Bush administration’s weak support for the treaty, its recent sweetheart deal rewarding India for building nuclear weapons outside the treaty’s limits, and its failure to contain the Iranian program, Egypt seems to be recalculating its own nuclear options.
How long until others follow suit? And how bad will it get before the administration admits that its radical strategy for stopping the spread of nuclear weapons has instead accelerated their proliferation?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
And how bad will it get before the administration admits that its radical strategy for stopping the spread of nuclear weapons has instead accelerated their proliferation?
it could logically get pretty damn bad, considering the administration admits NO wrong doing…
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:43 pmyeeesh…
Where is diplomacy when you need it?
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:45 pmBush hates treaties and the rest of us have to pay the price.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:55 pmThere are a couple other factors to consider. The first is that Iran’s neighbor, Sunni Pakistan is already in possession of nuclear weapons. The second is that we recently scorned Iran’s olive branch following their efforts to neutralize a Sunni threat to them in Afghanistan by providing us with the intelligence necessary to locate and disrupt al Qaida and the Taliban. Thirdly, given our hostile rhetoric and malicious (to them) interventions into their affairs beginning in 1953 when our CIA engineered a successful coup against their democratically elected prime minister in response to his move to impose a modest raise in export taxes on their petroleum, it makes perfect sense that they would seek the same deterrent that has been so effective for the North Koreans.
Despite the provocative rhetoric by their current president, the Iranians have not engaged in aggressive militarism against their neighbors in over 200 years. They have virtually no history of imperialism following Alexander’s conquest in 250 B.C. And there is no advantage to them in assisting nuclear proliferation in an unstable neighborhood populated by competing muslim factions.
Moreover, according to estimates based on IAEA findings, Iran is a minimum of ten years away from testing a nuclear weapon. Their current nuclear program has yielded on miniscule amounts of fissile material, and they are not yet capable of building a civillian reactor.
So put things in perspective. We can develop an effective wealth of useful diplomatic interventions by simply evaluating the counter-productiveness of our relations with Iran over the past 53 years.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:07 pmAnd how bad will it get before the administration admits that its radical strategy for stopping the spread of nuclear weapons has instead accelerated their proliferation?
When Pakistan’s nuclear missile hits a US city that has a high concentration of US industry, and ends up killing CEOs.
It won’t really be as much an admission as it will be a ’sticking the administration’s tail between it’s legs and running for the border.’ You can’t expect this administration to take indirect hints until it’s too late.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:25 pmMan has taken of knowledge before he has attained Wisdom…
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:36 pmAnd so mankind has sowed what he will reap.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:40 pmGood question. And another good question, if a country has nukes and then says “Unless you help us right now, we’re going to use them”, what do we do? Have we been blackmailed like this before? Perhaps in the ME somewhere by some country???
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:43 pmAnother domino theory. The last one was discredited, and this one is pretty shaky.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:14 amJoe, you didn’t mention Israel or the United States in your domino op-ed. Big mistake. The 5,000 deployable warheads of the US and the 200 of Israel are definitely factors, wouldn’t you say? And our cosying up to not only Israel but Pakistan and India, and promising to give India more nuclear technology, when all three of them have nuclear weapons but none of them are NPT signatories? Not worthy of mention?
Iran is an NPT signatory and there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons as you suggest. None. You didn’t mention that either Joe.
This is a typical TP/CAP scare piece–long on fantasy and short on facts.
Good question. And another good question, if a country has nukes and then says “Unless you help us right now, we’re going to use themâ€, what do we do? Have we been blackmailed like this before? Perhaps in the ME somewhere by some country???
Comment by toys
Nuclear ‘umbrella’ of protection is much nicer than saying blackmail
September 24th, 2006 at 12:15 amXbot,
GWB, post-Pakistani nuclear bomb: Nobody could have anticipated the nuking of the CEOs….
September 24th, 2006 at 12:18 am#11 Zooey
The idea was to portray this administrations’ real concern. It’s not with unstable nations with nuclear technology nor with the American people. It’s with corporate CEOs and profit. If blowing us up would make Halliburton happy, this administration would aim to please. Literally.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:55 amwhat don b said.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:00 amXbot,
I understand that. That’s why “GWB” only mentions the nuking of the CEOs, not the millions of others who would surely be killed as well.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:03 amLet’s see if anyone gets nuclear weapons don’t worry George Bush will use his Atomic Bomb and destory their country. Ameica has 80,000 of them and we’re building a more powerful one now. We will never allow anyone to have weapons unless we say so. As the White House told Pakestain we will blow you away if your not with us. We now torture worse then Saddam and we will control the world and steal the Middle East oil. The Saudi’s are next as we use people and lie then we stab them in the back. As for the US and the Bush policy the South will raise again and all minorities will be back were they belong as slaves and counted less then animals. Now that the GOP Bush plan for the new United States unless the American people stop him.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:27 amBack when the Soviet Union collapsed, there was grave concern over locking down all their nuclear weapons. That task has yet to be accomplished. Personally, I think we have been rather fortuitous that an extremist group hasn’t already gotten their hands on one…and used it.
My guess is, if it happens, it won’t be Al Qaeda, nor Hamas, nor Hezbollah, but some home-boy like McVeigh or the Unibomber.
Where have all the flowers gone?…
September 24th, 2006 at 1:28 amThere is NO nuclear dominos reality in the Middle East > Iran even if it gets some nukes would NOT be a threat to another nation! Israel with around 400 nukes is the biggest danger to peace in that region!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:46 amNukes, are worthless. To use a nuke you have to be pretty sure everyone else won’t nuke, or you have to be mad. Much as though the Iranian president is a bit of a, well, yeah, he isn’t so nuts as to believe in bringing about Armageddon in a war of aggression (he might use them in self defence though.)
The Republicans on the other hand have publicly pushed for the right to use tactical nukes in Iran. After Iraq, it is quite clear that Bush, when he threatens violence, cannot be dissuaded from it. Remember, everyone else involved in Iraq said that there was no threat, and what happened? French fries ended up getting redubbed Freedom Fries.
Further it is clear that Bush has zero morality or moral accountability. This is clear by the fact that he is pushing for the right to torture, a right that shall be granted by traitors like McCain (Who I have now lost all respect for) and the rubber stamp Republican Congress. It is further clear that to Americans any counter attack would be seen as being unacceptable aggression, sadly this includes most progressives - you would not argue that America nuked Mecca first if Iran nuked Washington later.
Israel, for all of its aggressive defence of its borders, has only expanded those borders in response to aggression from its neighbours. From 1949 up until now, Israel has only acted to defend itself or its citizens. America in Iraq demonstrated that it is not as moral as Israel. Even in Lebanon, which I consider an error on Israel’s part, Israel had a just pretext for war in the kidnapping of its soldiers and the lack of concern shown by Lebanon’s government. In Iraq there has been no justification given which passes muster or hasn’t been proven to be a total lie.
Israel, for all that it will defend itself down to the last bullet, has only acted with provocation, and it will speak to its enemies. America on the other hand has demonstrated that it has no interest in diplomacy and in fact a distinct hostility towards diplomacy via its treatment of the UN.
America has demonstrated a lack of concern over its most important treaties (The NPT and the Geneva Conventions) and has thus demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to treat honestly. At the moment the greatest destabilising force must therefore be America. America unlike most states believes itself to be above reaction, never mind reproach. It has acted in a unilateral manner, and has a large enough military to give it the impression that it can get away with it.
Now a lot of people on the left will claim that America entered Iraq on Israel’s insistence. Unfortunately for these leftwing Americans, Israel cannot hold responsibility for America’s actions, after all those actions were American. Israel is just another ally to America in an unstable environment, much like Kuwait, who would have been a stronger candidate for getting the blame for urging war after the Gulf War. To try and shovel blame onto Israel is to avoid American culpability in much the same manner as Zimbabwe shovels blame onto the UK.
Right now nuclear arms are proliferating due to America’s actions, the Middle East is probably not the only area to be developing nukes now that the NPT has effectively been scrapped. This is in itself not as important as it may seem, but it is symbolic of the fact that the world is entering an arms race, and those don’t end well when the power of diplomacy has been so reduced by dishonour. The new nuclear arms programs are frightening not in the visions of mushroom clouds, but in visions of WWIII, and extinction of our species.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:33 amThe quicker everybody has nuclear weapons as a deterent the safer the world will be ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,then the UN can act to dissarm the whole world instead of America being the sole persons to threaten to bomb countries back to the stone age ??????????
September 24th, 2006 at 4:51 amTobey Tall
Nope, nukes are just irrelevent as anything other then a symbol, even as a defence they haven’t bought Israel any peace. What we have to worry about is that when people are going nuclear, they tend to go for all the weapons right up to nuclear too, and there just isn’t that same reluctance to use those “lesser” weapons.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:09 amThe quicker everybody has nuclear weapons as a deterent the safer the world will be ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,then the UN can act to dissarm the whole world instead of America being the sole persons to threaten to bomb countries back to the stone age ??????????
Comment by Tobey Tall — September 24, 2006 @ 4:51 am
Not my personal cup of tea, but no worse than MAD, and that kept the peace for about 40 years. In fact you might argue that this is better than MAD, given that any exchanges will likely be limited and not actually threaten the species.
Certainly from the point of view of the tens of millions living in terror of the US, it’s much better.
On another note, I’ve worked out why the Christians are so keen on torture. If you worship a God who has created an eternal torture chamber for his enemies, a little waterboarding really seems namby pamby. Torture is a logical progression for those that really believe that kind of crap, if God does it, why shouldn’t I?
September 24th, 2006 at 5:16 amNope, nukes are just irrelevent as anything other then a symbol, even as a defence they haven’t bought Israel any peace. What we have to worry about is that when people are going nuclear, they tend to go for all the weapons right up to nuclear too, and there just isn’t that same reluctance to use those “lesser†weapons.
Comment by Bruce+Gorton — September 24, 2006 @ 5:09 am
The problem there seems to be that they are the only ones with the nukes. Maybe if the Iranians also had them …. might make people think twice, or three times.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:17 amBrian+Coughlan
Nope. The problem is that the Arabs really don’t like Israel, and want it gone. That Israel has nuclear weapons makes no difference one way or the other, their neighbours want the ground Israel rests on. If Nuclear weapons were a real deterent to war, the fact that Israel is the only one out there with nukes would instantly keep its neighbours quiet, but they don’t seem to work that way.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:26 amIf Nuclear weapons were a real deterent to war, the fact that Israel is the only one out there with nukes would instantly keep its neighbours quiet, but they don’t seem to work that way.
Comment by Bruce+Gorton — September 24, 2006 @ 5:26 am
You are almost certainly right. Enforced global law seems to be the only recourse then. Charge, try and imprision leadership adovcating, organising and prosecuting organised violence on ALL sides.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:43 amIf Nuclear weapons were a real deterent to war, the fact that Israel is the only one out there with nukes would instantly keep its neighbours quiet, but they don’t seem to work that way.
Comment by Bruce+Gorton — September 24, 2006 @ 5:26 am
You are almost certainly right. Enforced global law seems to be the only recourse then. Charge, try and imprision leadership adovcating, organising and prosecuting organised violence on EVERY side.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:44 amI can hardly wait for Egypt and every other country in the Middle East to develop a nuclear program. That will be the greatest legacy of Bush’s campaign lie that he is “a uniter not a divider.” Its unfortunate they all cant have nukes by January 20, 2009 when the Shurb leaves office. Maybe if they all had nukes, the rest of the world community could anoint Bush, Blair and John Howard as the “Axis of Dipshits” which they should do now, actually.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:00 amWhy other countries having weapons dont bother me
Who’s Against a Ban on Fissile Material?
In 2005, Mohamed ElBaradei was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his outstanding work in the international control of nuclear weapons. In 2003, ElBaradei had proposed a verifiable ban on the production of weapons-grade fissile material – a positive move that would severely limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In a vote of the Disarmament Committee of the United Nations (UN), one and only one nation voted against ElBaradei’s proposal – George Bush’s America. In that same vote, Israel abstained, apparently fearing international interference with their own outlaw nuclear weapons program, and Britain abstained in an act of diplomatic fealty to the “special relationship” between Tony Blair and George Bush. The final tally was 147 nations to one with the two abstentions. In a later vote of the entire UN General Assembly, Israel and Britain abstained, while America and Palau voted against ElBaradei’s verifiable ban on fission, and 179 nations voted in favor of his proposal. The final vote on that occasion was 179 in favor, two opposed (U.S. and Palau), and two abstentions (Israel and Britain).
ElBaradei’s proposal would monitor all nuclear fission and guarantee that non-nuclear weapons states would be able to obtain adequate supplies for their nonmilitary usage of enriched plutonium.
One nation has publicly accepted ElBaradei’s proposal: Iran.
So Its seems obvious to me that the world wants to ban this bomb , All except geroge bush cause he wants to protect the American people ??
Ok so America dont want to Ban the Bomb so Lets all have one ,
Read this How I Stopped Worrying…
“The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better,” but I hadn’t read it. Now I have, and, especially given that it was written during the height of the Cold War when we were living in a bipolar international system, he makes a strong case that still stands up remarkably well.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:14 amOK HERES THE BOTTOM LINE
Egypt abandoned a nuclear weapons program in the 1970s and joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
PROBLEM IS BUSH AGAIN AND THE UN
US Is 1 of Only 2 “No†Votes on Resolutions or Treaties
For the non-use of nuclear weapons vs. non-nuclear states
So everybody whats the point of the NNPT is America says it will attacke these countries with nukes ………that makes us all want nukes to protect us from America
Once again the problem with the whole world is Americas Foreign Policy ….
September 24th, 2006 at 8:21 amWhy is the middle east lets say not keen on America
The US military has been bombing one Middle Eastern or Muslim nation or another almost continuously since 1983, including Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iran, the Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq (almost daily bombings since 1991)
This, then, is a sampling of American foreign policies over the last 50 years. The FBI uses the following definition for Terrorism: “The unlawful use of force or violence committed by a group or individual, who has some connection to a foreign power or whose activities transcend national boundaries, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.†This sounds like the terrorism we just experienced. It also sounds a lot like the US policies and actions since 1945 that I’ve just described.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:44 amGood Post’s all, I don’t agree with all but still valed thought’s and worth the postings…..As I see all the war, bomb’s and nuclear talk I think of the major problem here. g.w.bush and his handlers on the hard line road to distroying everything in the path for power and profit….A little phrase comes to mind..” The only diffrence between men and boy’s is the price of their toy’s.” This price has been dreadful indeed. Hundred’s of thousands around the world and over 2,600 of our own have lost their lives for the bushco folly…The billions of dollars spent for distruction and supporting other countries to do the same like Israel is not only insane it is pure evil and madness….Sadly one in this group of merry war amongers has the mentalety of a evil child on crack.
I am of the mind set that every one has nuclear weapons or no one doe’s.. Yes I do mean no one especialy us with the present administration in mind. When Clinton was in office I never once thought our own would be distroyed by our administration, at present that is not the case. I didn’t worry about Clinton picking up the red phone or hitting the red button and sending the world to tiny star specks. With this bunch from the beginning that has been a worry…..War and nuclear weapons are like everything else, relevent to the mind’s of who is going to use them……I own gun’s, some of my neighbors own gun’s.. Some in this world should not be allowed to have weapons of any kind but for us to tell the world or other leader’s what they can or can’t have is as crazy as us allowing bush and company to be in charge…..I am more worried of this bunch of crazies in our administration than any other country….Remember on this Sunday and every day, pointing a gun at another and demanding they do you’re bidding doe’s not make a convert to you’re thought process……Peace does not come from the barell of a gun it comes from respect, negotiations and diplomacy. Three main ingredient’s we are missing in this administration…….Blessings All
September 24th, 2006 at 8:54 am27 28/
US Is 1 of Only 2 “No†Votes This Treaty
For the non-use of nuclear weapons vs. non-nuclear states
Explains everything
September 24th, 2006 at 8:55 amGeorge W. Bush and the Republican Congress - making the world much more dangerous since 2000.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:06 amAmerica’s Least Wanted
Israel is just another ally to America in an unstable environment, much like Kuwait, who would have been a stronger candidate for getting the blame for urging war after the Gulf War.
Comment by Bruce+Gorton — September 24, 2006 @ 4:33 am
No way, Jose. Israel controls our Congress and Executive in ways no other country does through The Lobby. They have the money, the spies and the votes, which means when Israel says “jump” the US government says “how high?” Check out Cheney’s and Bolton’s speeches at the AIPAC convention, our complete obeisance to the recent Lebanon massacre (led by Senator Clinton), essays by Justin Raimondo over at antiwar.com and statements by the president that we will always defend Israel. Israel drives our Middle East policies which are consistently pro-Israel and anti-Arab (except for certain dictatorial regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt).
On everything else you’re spot on, IMHO.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:05 amDonB
That is purest propaganda. Do you think the Democrats were any more immune to sweetheart deals from the lobbies? That Israel is the only country that can set up lobbies in America? Or that the Republicans would have taken America into a war they didn’t personally want? No, for a decision on this scale the true culpability must be with your government. It was America that led the charge, it was American voices that argued for the war, and it is for Americans to hold America accountable, otherwise you are giving your leaders an excuse and reducing their part in this.
You need to accept that America did this, because once you accept that you can move more effectively to prevent it happening again. Put the blame where it belongs, not where you would like it to belong.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:58 amFor every action there is a reaction.
You don’t get peace through violence. Perhaps Bush should have stayed sober during high school and college. He might have actually learned something useful.
I really hope that both Yale and Harvard are embarrassed that they gave that man their degrees…
September 24th, 2006 at 12:23 pmunbelievable,
Another bumpersticker seen recently:
“Fighting for Peace is like F*cking for Virginity”
:-)
September 24th, 2006 at 12:54 pmIf the US theatens everyone and invades non-nuclear nations then more nations are going to build nuclear weapons to deter US imperialism.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:50 pm#17. I observe (from another thread) that Jew-hater Randal continues his bigoted obsession wherever he can!
September 24th, 2006 at 4:07 pm#18, #23, #35. Very good, Gorton. I admire you for trying to talk sense into this blame-Israel-first crowd.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:10 pm#34 DonB. Why are all lefties anti-Semites?
Check a few polls as well as demographic data, jerk. The Jews are less than 2% of the population, yet the majority of Americans usually support Israel by solid margins:
________________________________________________
http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm
Again, you lose the American mainstream, 57% (35%+22%) of whom say Israel used correct or insufficient force:
35% of Americans say Israel used “About Right†force in Lebanon and 22% say “Not Enoughâ€:
“Do you think Israel is using too much force in Lebanon, not using enough force, or is using about the right amount of force?â€
Too Much Not Enough About Right Unsure
% % % %
8/3-6/06
32 22 35 11
As for blame, 58% of Americans blame Hezbollah for civilian caualties. In a US election, that would be a landslide for the Israeli side:
“Who do you blame more for the civilian casualties in Lebanon: Hezbollah for locating its fighters and rocket launchers in civilian areas, or Israel for bombing Hezbollah targets in those areas?â€
Hezbollah Israel Neither (vol.) Both (vol.) Unsure
% % % % %
8/3-6/06
58 21 2 10 9
________________________________________________
Public opinion, and the principle of supporting a stable, democratic ally, drive American policy in the Middle East, not any of your insane conspiracy-theories about AIPAC.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:15 pmAverageAmerican
Israel is a country. It has policies, which are contraversial all around the world. Israel, much like everywhere else, does have a checkered past. It is not above criticism.
Furthermore, polling data does not prove anything save that some people disagree with other people over the policies of Israel. This does not prove that they are anti-Semites, this just proves that they are anti-Israel.
I criticise the Zimbabwean Government the whole time, does that make me a racist? Hell I criticise the South African Government the whole time, particularly with the recent dismissal of charges against Jacob Zuma, does that make me a racist?
September 24th, 2006 at 4:28 pm1. Repeated, obsessive, unbalanced, disparate criticism of Israel — without a word to the genocidal, religious-fanatic agenda of its enemies — is indeed indicative of a hidden agenda of anti-Semitism.
2. You don’t read well. The polling data was an answer to the twits who asserted “Israeli control” rather than public opinion a driver behind US policy towards the Israel-Palestinian issue. Enoguh anti-Semitic conspiracy theories; the American public generally supports Israel, so it’s not surprising their government does, too.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:33 pmNo it is indicative of being Anti-Israel. Much like repeating obsessive, unbalanced criticisms of the Zimbabwean government, would be being anti Zimbabwean but not anti-black. The same goes for posting obsessive, unbalanced criticisms of England would not be anti-white.
Think about it this way: If it was any country BUT Israel, would you accuse someone of being anti whatever the major population group was in that country?
September 24th, 2006 at 4:41 pm#44. Wrong. We well know one who harps upon every conceivable African-American or African fault does indeed have a problem with blacks. And one who harps upon every possible aspect of Israel — to the extent even of blaiming Israel for Hillary’s own mis-steps — does indeed have an animus against Jews — especially when not one word of objection is proferred to the genocidal threats of Hezbullah, Hamas, or Iran.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:23 pm45 - AverageAmerican,
September 24th, 2006 at 5:37 pmWhat do African-Americans have to do with to do with Israel? I know! Jessie Jackson went over there to try to persuade Israel to allow Arafat to travel to the Gaza Strip. Go find your rocker!
#46. Walt.
We learned long ago to recognise the hidden agenda of bigotry.
Duke doesn’t come right out and say “I hate blacks.” Similarly, anti-Semites won’t say outrightly “I hate Jews,” just will rant interminably about Israel.
But the agenda comes out.
http://tailrank.com/ posts/ 562949953908149/ Moveon.org_Bastion_of_Hate_Speech__Intolerance_Versus_Lieberman
September 24th, 2006 at 5:43 pm#47 - AverageAmerican,
September 24th, 2006 at 5:55 pmI suggest that you locate your nearest Alanon chapter.
You are all over the pavement. Now Duke? I never realized he was a Democrat. He was initially a Dixiecrat and switched to Republican when LBJ lowered the boom on discrimination.
#48. Walt, are you too cowardly to address the point?
September 24th, 2006 at 5:56 pmNow it is time to return to the Middle East. That is the topic of this thread.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:58 pm#49 - AverageAmerican,
September 24th, 2006 at 6:01 pmNo I served. Ican’t go back because I am over 65. But that makes me an UnAverageAmerican>
#49 - AverageAmerican,
September 24th, 2006 at 6:12 pmI amsorry that I posted in haste, but that happens in a fit of anger. I meant to say:
#49 - AverageAmerican,
No, I served. I can’t go back because I am over 65. I wish that it were me instead of the flower of our youth. But that makes me an UnAverageAmerican.
#50 #51 #52 CowardWalt still refuses to address the point of #45 #47.
Bigots like Duke always pretend to oppose the “policies” of minorities, but we are wise to their agenda of hate.
And bigots like Randal and Donb (#34-35) always claim to simply oppose “policies” even as the animus is obvious underlying their double standard.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:29 pmSuperChickenYellowBackedYellowBelliedAverageAmerican fails to address anything pertinent to this discussion. We have a failed presidency and all it does is try to divert us from the issue with infantile insults - W has screwed up big in the Middle East (and the rest of the World as well). Like W it is against vets and true American patriots.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:02 pmEVERYBODY or nobody should have nukes then the playing field is actually fair/
September 24th, 2006 at 8:10 pmAnd if EL DIABLOCO nuke anyone they should be nuked, fiar’s fair.
DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE UNTO U.S.
F*CKING BULLIES WITH BOMBS
KARMA WILL COME
I would guess that AverageAmerican has been tucked into its crib and is sucking away on its Binky. Nite - nite, baby.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:45 pm#56. You guess wrong, pendejo.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:49 pm#57 - SuperChickenYellowBackedYellowBelliedAverageAmerican,
September 24th, 2006 at 9:07 pmStill do not respect those who served foe America. That was crude - my Grandfather served with TR - San Juan Hill and all that. I was at Pearl Harbor and Seoul when they broke out (Navy Dad). Served in Korea, Nam and Cambodia. What is your claim to courage?
Re: # 59,
September 24th, 2006 at 9:21 pmIch glaube dass diese Burschenleben in Südamerika, Er nur haben benutzt einen Argentinier Vulgarismus.
Ignoramus, “er” takes “hat” not “haben,” and your word order is wrong; the participle belongs at the end of the sentence.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:31 pmBack on topic - Egypt is making noises about going nuclear, North Korea is up to about eight bombs, India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers and all this has occurred under W’s watch. Iran is not near to nuclear capability for at least 5 years and in all probability, the next 10, but W is Hell bent on launching an attack that will bring on the Russians and Chinese as well as create an oil crisis that will dwarf anything that we have seen up until now. Rationing will probably hit 5 gallons a week and prices at about $10 per.
By the bye, TP, #57 is a real vulgarism. I learned it in Argentina. #59 vanished which makes my #59 a revolving comment.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:42 pm#61 How come fools like you know what Bush intends when he doesn’t even know himself?
September 24th, 2006 at 9:44 pm#60 -
September 24th, 2006 at 9:45 pmWorks for me on the telephone. I guess I will have to educate my German friends in Deusche.
test
September 24th, 2006 at 9:54 pmYou might be correct in a way. I learned to speak German in Baden Wurttemberg. When I went up to Hanover to meet some of my relations, we had a small communications problem. It was even worse in Bayern where the syllables were so crisp that it seemed like a different language - much like trying to understand the truncated Cockney dialects in the Cocks Wald of England.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:03 pm#63. Ignorant clown, most native speakers do not insist upon perfection so long as they can understand the meaning.
You really ought to get out of your hovel more.
And stop taking yourself for God. You’re just another ranting clown, easily outmanouevred by the Republicans.
Which is why moderate libs like myself despise you.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:11 pm#63. Btw, the spelling is “Deutsch.”
September 24th, 2006 at 10:12 pm#67 - BelowAverageAmerican,
September 24th, 2006 at 10:58 pmI know the spelling, I suffer from arthritus and typing is an effort. Do not allways check and you just contraindicated yourself in #66 vs. #60. By the way, I took about 23 minutes to solve the Sunday NY Times puzzle. Oscar Wilde is the theme and the quote is “In America the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefit of their inexperience.” Apt quote that certainly applies to you.
CowardWalt. More idiotic assumptions on your part. You have absolutely no idea of either my age or my ethnicity.
What sort of “contraindication” are you raving about now?
This arrogant clown takes himself for God! Reminds me of Bushido, in fact.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:17 pmWalt > if you see this post just ignore AverageAmerican troll > he is NOT a moderate Democrat > he is most likely paid by Karl Rove to come on here to pick fights and/or to confuse posters! He calls everyone anti-semitic > lol.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:34 am#70. Poor, poor Randal. His bigotry guarantees that the majority of Americans will ignore him.
If Dems fail to take the House, it will be the Randals who are responsible.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:55 amA tempest in a teapot. Should the US threaten to reduce its $2 billion annual bribe to Egypt, Egypt will give up nuclear ambitions and fall into line.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:03 am#70 The Guardian on Randal’s spiritual brothers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ g2/ story/ 0,3604,685552,00.html
Even one of Britain’s oldest leftist publications is wise to the hypocritical claims of those who insist they are “only anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic ….”
September 25th, 2006 at 6:12 am#76. From the Guardian article:
September 25th, 2006 at 6:38 am[…] And just in case that wasn’t enough, it seems Bush’s weak stance about the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and his fucked up handling of the Middle East is not only making sure that terrorism increases and unifies, but its recent sweetheart deal rewarding India for building nuclear weapons outside the treaty’s limits and its failure to contain the Iranian program have made Egypt recalculate its own nuclear options. […]
September 25th, 2006 at 8:05 amThe whole region will start building a nuke weapon program if we don’t stop Irans, that is obvious. So, we need to stop Iran nuke program ASAP. Give them a 2 week deadline. If they don’t stop within 2 weeks, we invade the entire country, kill the extremist that run it, and shut the nuke sites down. That would be a very strong message to the rest of the region to NOT even try it.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:13 am#76 Sounds great Roger, I’m sure you’ll be able to tell us how it goes as you’ll be in the front lines bayoneting every mullah you see, right Rog?
September 25th, 2006 at 12:15 pmAnd then gasoline will be $1.15 by next spring… woo hoo, break out the Hummer Arnold, nirvana is returning…
September 25th, 2006 at 12:31 pmI was in the national Guard up until 5 years ago. I currently have 1 knee that is replaced, 2 ankles that completely have been redone, and I am blind in 1 eye. Basically, the military doesn’t see me as fit for active duty anymore. I did spend 4 years in the Guard though. Have you?
September 25th, 2006 at 12:37 pmNope Rog, I would have to be American first…. how’s that ferreting out of that $1.15 a gallon quote going? I’m really interested to see where you go that.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:56 pmLets see,
http://www.leftlanenews.com/ 2006/ 09/ 14/ gas-prices-to-fall-to-115/
http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/23013.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/104/story/486039.html
http://gayorbit.net/?p=5459
http://www.democraticunderground.com/ discuss/ duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102×2511861
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ archives/ 2006/ 09/ gasoline_could_drop_to_115gallon/
http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/ archives/ 2006/ 09/ gas_at_115_a_ga.html
http://forums.macnn.com/ 89/ macnn-lounge/ 309791/ gas-might-going-back-down/
Would you like me to post more news articles about the possibility of $1.15 gas? I got more if you need. Figured these would work since half of them are from lefty sites.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:26 pmThanks Rog - I’ll read some of these. Here’s mine from the DOE that says “no chance”….http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html
September 12th, 2006:
Mind you Bunsen Honeydew at the DOE thought the Iraq occupation was going well, so you can’t allow them much of a free pass on their opinions.
Oh and by the way, here’s an analysis of the options of invading/bombing Iran to slow them up by a few years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2006/ 04/ 08/ AR2006040801082_2.html Oh and I think you missed the ‘convert them to Christianity’ part of the Coulter solution for the Middle East.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:37 pmThe average price of gas is ALREADY under $2.55. I am pretty sure it will be much lower by January. LOL
September 25th, 2006 at 1:40 pmI am paying $2.06 in my town.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:41 pmI would go for the full blown invasion. A Simple bombing to slow them down wouldn’t be enough as your lik points out.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:48 pm#81 - Roger I’m afraid the volume of links you posted doesn’t add weight to your argument. I checked all I could. One was a stale link, one was a subscriber link and all of the rest referred to a prediction in the Seattle Times by one Philip Verleger. So you have one oil analyst with his $15/barrel, $1.15/gallon. OK, that’s his opinion, all based on rising inventories and flat demand. I thought you had said the DOE stated the $1.15/gallon too?
September 25th, 2006 at 1:52 pmHmm the terrain is much different than the plains of Iraq, all mountainous and three times the size… bad tank country by the looks of things. Not to worry, doesn’t look like the army is ready anyway. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14958938/
September 25th, 2006 at 2:17 pmTerry,
Are you saying we should back down and let them build there nuke?
September 25th, 2006 at 2:46 pmNo, but then launching a major assault (ground invasion is not on the cards, so I mean lots of planes, bunker busting bombs and god forbid tactical nukes for the deep holes) will, in the opinion of experts, delay the Iranians for a few years at best, seriously piss them off and probably accelerate their desire to build a bomb, throw Iraq into total chaos and probably ignite a regional conflict that will throw the world into a depression. Like the NIE on Iraq, a US attack on Iran will (like the Israel/Hezbollah was) just play into the hands of the extremists - on both sides.
I take the realpolitik approach that the trade off is simply not worth it. Several other countries have built nukes in defiance of the NPT and mostly got away with it: Israel, Pakistan, India (even got rewarded), North Korea. So far none of them have been used, so there is restraint even in dictatorships. There are next to no good options left, IMO.
This thread is about to drop off, and so therefore is my contribution to it…bye.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:04 pmNuclear Proliferation is surely the prelude to the universal human holocaust that will be World War III, where the survivors will surely envy the dead.
January 1st, 2007 at 8:40 pmCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 12:24 amCock Massive Cocks Cumshots Big Gay Cock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pmCock Very Young Boy Cock Small Cock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 11:22 am