Pages

Friday, February 10, 2012

First Thoughts: A 'Super' reversal

2


Team Obama’s Super PAC reversal and “Super” hypocrisy… Messina: “We can’t allow for two sets of rules whereby … Democrats unilaterally disarm”… And screwing up the fundraising vetting.


Larry Downing / Reuters
U.S. President Barack Obama talks about the economy at Fire Station Number Five in Arlington, Virginia February 3, 2012.
By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** A 'Super' reversal: Anyone who is surprised by the Obama campaign's announcement last night that it's encouraging Democratic donors to give money to the pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA Action -- after previously criticizing this practice -- wasn't paying attention in 2008. Back then, remember, Obama reversed himself and opted out of public financing for the general election, enabling his campaign to raise some $750 million to win the presidency. That reversal then and this reversal now tell us two important things about Obama and modern presidential politics. One, it's a losing proposition to always put principle above winning. Indeed, the rise of these Super PACs (like Karl Rove's American Crossroads, the pro-Romney Restore Our Future, and the Sheldon Adelson-backed Winning Our Future) could very well wipe out any fundraising advantage the incumbent enjoys in 2012. And two, as the L.A. Times' Mark Barabak points out, voters rarely care about these kind of process stories. After all, did Obama lose a single vote in '08 due to his public-financing reversal?



*** And ‘Super’ hypocrisy: But make no mistake: The White House is going to receive plenty of heat -- from good-government groups, liberals, and the media -- for this reversal. Why? Because after all of its criticism of Citizens United and Super PACs, last night’s announcement looks hypocritical no matter how you try and rationalize it. Three additional things seem to be going on with this change in policy: 1) The Obama campaign appears to be spooked by the $30 million the pro-Romney Restore Our Future raised in 2011; 2) Democratic donors who wanted to start giving to Super PACs were complaining; and 3) The blessing from the Obama campaign opens the spigot for the Democratic House and Senate Super PACs who had been struggling to raise money since the titular head of the party spent the last year and half demonizing these groups. What’s more, his decision won’t just be a financial boon for the struggling Democratic Super PACs; it’s going to be a seal of approval for the Republican Super PACs. They now have been legitimized by the president and their effectiveness has been highlighted by the Obama campaign. The financial nuclear arms race is now afoot.
*** “We can’t allow for two sets of rules”: In a blog posting last night, Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina wrote that the president “opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections… And [he] favors action -- by constitutional amendment, if necessary -- to place reasonable limits on all such spending.” But Messina added, “With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.” He also announced in the blog posting that top campaign aides and Cabinet secretaries would speak at fundraising events for Priorities USA Action, though the president, vice president, and first lady wouldn’t. Three people, in particular, are singled out for this duty: David Plouffe, Valerie Jarrett, and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (who formerly worked for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association and obviously has lots of connections with the big donor trial-lawyer community). By the way, the Obama campaign is holding a conference call on its announcement at 11:00 am ET.


President Obama announced he's given the green light to super PACs for his own campaign, and frontrunner Mitt Romney is aiming new attacks at Rick Santorum.
*** Screwing up the vetting: The Obama campaign’s Super PAC reversal overshadowed a New York Times report that the family of a Mexican casino magnate, Juan Jose Rojas (Pepe) Cardona, who fled the U.S. on drug and fraud charges had been bundling money for the campaign. “When The New York Times asked the Obama campaign early Monday about the Cardonas, officials said they were unaware of the brother in Mexico. Later in the day, the campaign said it was refunding the money raised by the family, which totaled more than $200,000.” This kind of story hits at this truth: When campaigns are raising big bucks – whether they are Democratic or Republican – it is human nature that you sometimes screw up the vetting. Fundraisers get so excited about hitting the lottery with a big donor or big bundler that they, perhaps, vet with eye toward finding nothing.
*** And more on the contraception story and the Eastwood ad: Two additional points on some of the other politics topics of the day. One, the White House’s decision on contraception pitted women vs. the Catholic bishops, and Team Obama decided that it was more important not to alienate women’s groups. (In fact, if this story becomes about women’s health, it won’t be a problem for the Obama folks. But it will be a problem if it’s viewed as government interference.) Two, do Republican critics of the Clint Eastwood/Chrysler ad – like Karl Rove yesterday – look like they are rooting against America and the rebounding U.S. auto industry? Remember, the Bush administration also helped bail out Chrysler.

1861comments below
 Only added first few, click the link to read more.

Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 ... 28

I don't think the term "super-PAC" is in the Constitution. Corporate money is a corrupting influence on our democracy, whether via the cash flowing through PAC's, , through anonymous contributions to shadowy "independent" organizations that run false and baseless attack advertisements on behalf of Republicans or more traditional donations from the Wall Street elite to Obama's reelection campaign, the explosion of money in politics is distressing. The key to true reform in America is to eradicate all private donations and give every candidate a level playing field, free of special interests. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
  • 176 votes
#1 - Tue Feb 7, 2012 9:13 AM EST

Do any of the RWNJ’s seriously believe President Obama would just roll over for Karl Rove & Co.?
There is NO way Democrats are going to be stuck in traffic while, the Koch Brothers & the rest of brotherhood of billionaires zoom by in the express lanes.
It's time to fight fire with fire - get over it!
  • 188 votes
#1.1 - Tue Feb 7, 2012 9:14 AM EST

Comment author avatarJoe in AlbanyRestored
“I was against Citizen’s United and Super PAC’s before I was for them. If I were to stand by my beliefs and principles, I might end up losing MY job. I find that possibility unacceptable, and I think a great many Americans’ will agree with me.”
-Barry Obama, 10:00 PM EST, February 6, 2012

For all the FR lefty liberals that fit the famous Jack Nicholson line in A Few Good Men:

“The TRUTH!?! You can’t handle the truth!!”

Please start collapsing this post now.

LMAO!!!!

Excerpts from Politico:

Obama embraces the super PAC
By: Glenn Thrush
February 6, 2012 11:04 PM EST
President Barack Obama — in an act of hypocrisy or necessity, depending on the beholder — has reversed course and is now blessing the efforts of a sputtering super PAC, Priorities USA Action, organized to fight GOP dark-money attacks.
On Monday morning, Obama reviled the “negative” tone of the super PACs, a dominant fundraising source in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. But by the evening, word leaked to POLITICO that Obama had offered his support for Priorities USA Action, which thus far has raised a fraction of what GOP-backed groups have raked in.
The timing of the announcement seemed rushed, several Democrats told POLITICO. It was made in a 10 p.m. call to Obama’s top bundlers, known as the National Finance Committee.
Republicans lost no time in blasting Obama’s move Monday night.
“Yet again, Barack Obama has proven he will literally do anything to win an election, including changing positions on the type of campaign spending he called nothing short of a ‘threat to our democracy,’” said Joe Pounder, the Republican National Committee’s research director. “In less than 24 hours, Obama has gone from decrying super PACs in the morning to opening up the door to their money during a conference call with his big money donors in the middle of the night.”
  • 142 votes
#1.2 - Tue Feb 7, 2012 9:17 AM EST
Posted by at No comments:

Report: Saudi Arabia to buy nukes if Iran tests A-bomb


 5
hours
ago


Mustafa Ozer / AFP - Getty Images, file
Saudi special forces take part in a military parade in the holy city of Mecca on November 10, 2010.
By msnbc.com staff, NBC News and news services


Saudia Arabia would move quickly to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran successfully tests an atomic bomb, according to a report.
Citing an unidentified Saudi Arabian source, the Times newspaper in the U.K. (which operates behind a paywall) said that the kingdom would seek to buy ready-made warheads and also begin its own program to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
The paper suggested that Pakistan was the country most likely to supply Saudi Arabia with weapons, saying Western officials were convinced there was an understanding between the countries to do so if the security situation in the Persian Gulf gets worse. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have denied such an arrangement exists.
iv> Iran, which follows the Shiite branch of Islam, and Sunni Saudi Arabia are major regional rivals.
The Times described its source for the story as a "senior Saudi," but gave no other details.
Israel uses MEK terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, US officials say




Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, describes what Iranian leaders believe is a close relationship between Israel's secret service, the Mossad, and the People's Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, which is considered a terrorist organization by the United States.

"There is no intention currently to pursue a unilateral military nuclear program, but the dynamics will change immediately if the Iranians develop their own nuclear capability," the source told the newspaper. "Politically, it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom."
It also cited an unnamed Western official as saying that Saudi Arabia would ask Pakistan to honor the alleged agreement "the next day" after any Iranian nuclear bomb test.
The U.S. and other nations suspect that Iran is using its civilian nuclear work as a cover for a weapons program, but Iran insists that its nuclear ambitions are strictly peaceful. The U.S. has used sanctions and diplomacy to pressure Iran on the issue, but has long refused to rule out military action saying that all options are on the table. Israel is also believed to be contemplating a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now believes there's a strong possibility that Israel will attack Iran in an attempt to thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions, according to U.S. officials. NBC's Richard Engel reports.

In a statement issued Friday by the Pakistan Embassy in Saudi Arabia, Ambassador Mohammed Naeem Khan was quoted as saying that "each Pakistani considers (the) security of Saudi Arabia as his personal matter." Naeem also said that the Saudi leadership considered Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to be one country.
In January this year, Saudi Arabia's former ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki al-Faisal, said in an interview with The Associated Press that unless a zone free of weapons of mass destruction was created in the Mideast there would "inevitably" be a nuclear arms race, and "that's not going to be in the favor of anybody."
He stressed that the Gulf states were committed not to acquire WMD.
"But we're not the only players in town. You have Turkey. You have Iraq which has a track record of wanting to go nuclear. You have Egypt. They had a very vibrant nuclear energy program from the 1960s. You have Syria. You have other players in the area that could open Pandora's box," the Saudi prince told

Iran envoy: We could hit US forces anywhere in world if attacked
Asked whether Saudi Arabia would maintain its commitment against acquiring WMD, Turki said: "What I suggest for Saudi Arabia and for the other Gulf states ... is that we must study carefully all the options, including the option of acquiring weapons of mass destruction. We can't simply leave it for somebody else to decide for us."
Turki is also a former Saudi intelligence chief and remains an influential member of the Saudi royal family.
Turki said the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council should guarantee a nuclear security umbrella for Mideast countries that join a nuclear-free zone — and impose "military sanctions" against countries seen to be developing nuclear weapons.
"I think that's a better way of going at this issue of nuclear enrichment of uranium, or preventing Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction," he said in the AP interview.

In October, the U.S. claimed that agents linked to Iran's Qud's Force, an elite wing of the Revolutionary Guard, were involved in a plot to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S., Adel Al-Jubeir. Iran said the claims were "baseless."
'Meddling'
Turki said in November that there was "ample and heinous" evidence that Iran was behind the alleged plot. He added that the evidence "indicates the depths of depravity and unreason to which the (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad regime has sunk."
Turki called the plot "the tip of the iceberg," saying Iran was "meddling" in the affairs of many other countries, including Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan and especially Iraq.

The Saudi government has also accused a terror cell linked to Iran of plotting to blow up its embassy in Bahrain, as well as the causeway linking the island kingdom to Saudi Arabia.
In a secret diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks, Saudi King Abdullah allegedly urged Washington to strike at Iran and "cut off the head of the snake."
Turki dismissed the cable in November, telling reporters that Saudi Arabia supported sanctions and diplomatic pressure against Iran but not a military strike.

He said military action would only stiffen Iran's resolve, rally support for the regime and at best delay, but not halt, the nuclear program. "Such an act I think would be foolish, and to undertake it I think would be tragic," he said.
The Associated Press, NBC News and msnbc.com staff contributed to this report.

775comments below 

And I just added a small fraction of comments so if you nneed to look at others click the above link.  


Great Atomic Power

Do you fear this man's invention
That they call atomic power
Are we all in great confusion
Do we know the time or hour
When a terrible explosion
May rain down upon our land
Leaving horrible destruction
Blotting out the works of man
Are you ready
For that great atomic power?
Will you rise and meet your Savior in the air?
Will you shout or will you cry
When the fire rains from on high?
Are you ready for that great atomic power?
There is one way to escape it
Be prepared to meet the lord
Give your heart and soul to Jesus
He will be your shielding sword
He will surely stand beside you
And you'll never taste of death
For your soul will fly to safety
And eternal peace and rest
Are you ready
For that great atomic power?
Will you rise and meet your Savior in the air?
Will you shout or will you cry
When the fire rains from on high?
Are you ready for that great atomic power
There's an army who can conquer
All the enemy's great band
It's a regiment of Christians
Guided by the Savior's hand
When the mushroom of destruction
falls in all it's fury great
God will surely save His children
From that awful awful fate
Are you ready
For that great atomic power?
Will you rise and meet your Savior in the air?
Will you shout or will you cry
When the fire rains from on high?
Are you ready for that great atomic power
The Louvin Brothers [1952]
#1.55 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:14 AM EST


Chris has a point that if you ONLY read MSNBC - points will be bankrupt of actual information.
For instance, an ex- Israeli Mossad Chief, has said that bombing or starting a war with Iran would be "the stupidest thing" to do. In the Mossad circle he is not alone. It is looking like Netanyahu is more unstable than the leaders in Iran.
Baer [former CIA agent in Mid East] didn't name sources for his prediction of an Israeli attack, but the few he did cite are all Israeli security figures who have publically warned that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are hell-bent on war.
Baer is especially impressed by the unprecedented warning about Netanyahu's plans by former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan. Dagan left the Israeli intelligence agency in September 2010 and two months ago predicted that Israel would attack and that doing so would be "the stupidest thing" he could imagine.
...later in article
Dagan is "one of the most rightwing militant people ever born here. ... When this man says that the leadership has no vision and is irresponsible, we should stop sleeping soundly at night."
Dagan describes the current Israeli government as "dangerous and irresponsible" and views speaking out against Netanyahu as his patriotic duty.
And his abhorrence of Netanyahu is not uncommon in the Israeli security establishment. According to Think Progress, citing the Forward newspaper, 12 of the 18 living ex-chiefs of Israel's two security agencies (Mossad and Shin Bet), are "either actively opposing Netanyahu's stances or have spoken out against them." Of the remaining six, two are current ministers in Netanyahu government, leaving a grand total of four out of 18 who independently support the prime minister.
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/former-cia-official-israe_b_900117.html
Interestingly, it appears that many countries who are not in the know - have said Iran would use nuclear weapons IF they had them - Iran has never stated this - they have only stated that they will close the strait of Hormuz if attacked. Guess what the Israeli government is now concerned about - if they will get nuclear fallout when they bomb Iran.....
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Israelis-Debate-Possible-Fallout-From-Any-Attack-on-Iran-139009379.html
Lately they are warning that such an attack could come this year.
It appears that most agree that Israel will attack THIS YEAR... statement below from first link
A longtime CIA officer who spent 21 years in the Middle East is predicting that Israel will bomb Iran this fall, dragging the United States into another major war and endangering U.S. military and civilian personnel (and other interests) throughout the Middle East and beyond.
Everyone is in accord that Iran does NOT have nuclear weapons now - if they are in development, they are a few years away - so why is Israel bent on war THIS year? Iran has elections coming up, it is likely that the young people in the country who have grown up with satellite television from the US and abroad would elect a President who was for reform and not for making enemies. It seems Israel is not in the mood to get along with Iran even if the Dali Lama was Iran's President. Something just doesn't make sense, oh wait, I forgot - all the US troops are supposed to be home by the end of the year, Israel needs to attack while we are still there and force us into this war.
Israel has no problem bombing innocent civilians, or assassinating one of their own leaders who was for peace (Rabin). This is not looking good for anyone.
  • 5 votes
#1.56 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:16 AM EST
Saudi Arabia is finally finding itself in the cross hairs of radicals. Up until now they've played a friend to the West, while playing games in the League of Arab Nations, OPEC, funded various anti-west groups, etc. They've played all the cards they could to make as much as possible, supress their people, quietly support terrorism, and keep their neighbors happy.
Now they are being put in the position where radical Islamists (Muslim Brotherhood) said that this year they are going to start taking on "the kings"(last year was the year of "the regimes"). When Iran gets their nuclear weapons up and ready this year they will have the big stick to threaten everyone in the region. I continue to believe that Iran will attack Israel as soon as possible, but once they've gone there it's not much of a push to attempt to control the oil of the region. They've got Russia and China's support, so it will be hard to control them.
Funny thing that Saudi Arabia will likely go to Packistan for their nukes. They should be able to buy scientists, materials, and weapons pretty cheaply with their deep pockets. I wonder how the UN, the US, and others will deal with their interests. I'd guess it'll end up sounding like this, "Well, they have to protect themselves now that Iran has them."
  • 1 vote
#1.57 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:19 AM EST
Judsi-2161644
You are the one that is not making sense. Apparently you are confused. The US is not against the nuclear power plant the Russians built in Iran. That is for civilian power. Just like the power plants here in the US. But, we are against Iran developing nuclear weapons, which is what they are trying to do as a separate thing from their civilian power program. The weapons program includes a host of things ranging from centrifuges making uranium enriched at higher levels than needed for civilian use (a short and easy step away from weapons grade enrichment), to nuclear weapons missile technology, to bomb trigger mechanism, to work on advanced implosion technologies (which when perfected makes it easier to place nukes on smaller missiles that would be capable of hitting places like Tel Aviv). I suggest that you Google the IAEA and read the last two reports they issued on Iran's program. And please, also be informed that in the most recent visit to Iran, the IAEA team was denied access to certain facilities and to individuals knowledgeable about Iran's weapons program.
If their program was truly for peaceful purposes, they would have nothing to hide and would make all of their personnel available for interviews. Please educate yourself a little bit about what is going on before making comments that make little sense.
#1.58 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:22 AM EST
Wonder why the U.S. wants to build another nuclear facility if it is telling Iran to get rid of theirs? Nothing makes sense.
New Flash: The US is thirty years behind in replacing old nuclear facilities and building new nuclear facilities. Despite what die-hard environmentalists may think, green energy is not a viable base-line energy source, unlike nuclear and fossil fuel fired power plants. But does Iran need nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? Given its oil reserves, Iran's claim lacks credibility. If they had nukes, they'd use them on Israel, but Israel would strike first.
  • 1 vote
#1.59 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:23 AM EST
Oh so now nuclear reactors are the same as nuclear bombs. Okay if that's the case, then I argue that the oil and natural gas that you use for energy in your house is the same as napalm.
Since you think nuclear bad, and nuclear reactors = nuclear bombs, so therefore nuclear reactors = bad, I shall argue
napalm = bad, and oil and natural gas = napalm, so therefore oil and natural gas = bad.
See the flawed logic?
#1.60 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:42 AM EST
John - as another poster reported said on NV - yes, Iran has oil but it does NOT have refineries...it can refine only 2% of it's oil, that is not enough to support a large nation's electrical, etc. needs. It does need nuclear energy to support the country.
Additionally - Iran has the same problem as Saudi Arabia, it is difficult to refine "desert" oil - it is cheaper to sell it "as-is," then to try and refine it.
Heavy oil, which can be as thick as molasses, is harder to get out of the ground than light oil and costs more to refine into gasoline. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have embarked on an ambitious experiment to coax it out of the Wafra oil field, located in a sparsely populated expanse of desert shared by the two nations.
That the Saudis are even considering such a project shows how difficult and costly it is becoming to slake the world's thirst for oil. It also suggests that even the Saudis may not be able to boost production quickly in the future if demand rises unexpectedly. Neither issue bodes well for the return of cheap oil over the long term.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704436004576299421455133398.html
  • 1 vote
#1.61 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:50 AM EST
@ Charles the Hammerhead
I do believe nuclear weapons are powered by nuclear fission, not fusion and unless you're referring to cold fusion, having a regular fusion reactor would be pretty bad since it would just melt everything around it.
=]
  • 1 vote
#1.63 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:56 AM EST
op2388
Nuclear leads to Thermonuclear. It's simply the next inevitable step. Both processes (fission and fusion) involve the atomic nucleus. And for your information, cold fusion thus far is a failed hypothesis.
In escalation there will always be the move to bigger and more powerful. Remember that dominion is obtained by whomever creates the loudest bang.
By all appearances Iran's secretive program is taking the first step, not yet the second. Saudi Arabia is threatening to take the fist step if Iran tests a device. Israel has taken 1st and 2nd steps. It has only been since 1945 that we have been in the nuclear age. This is a blip of time.
My original point was about the developement of nuclear or implicitly, thermonuclear devices. If Iran is willing to allow full UN monitoring of a civilian nuclear power program then there would be no discussion of an escallating arms race, and this article would never have been written.
#1.64 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:24 PM EST




Russia developed nuclear weapons because the US had them. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons because India had them. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it only makes sense that the Saudi's and the UAE would acquire them. That is what will keep the peace, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), is the only thing that will keep millions from getting killed and the world from being poisoned. A nuclear weapon has not been used on a population center since 11:02 am on August 11, 1945, when a US B-29 bomber dropped a single Mk-II "Fat Man" atomic bomb over Nagasaki, estimated population 240,000. MAD has worked to ensure peace for over 66 years. I don't want to see nuclear arms spread, but if Iran gets a nuclear weapon then it has already been proven that the only thing that will ensure peace is if their enemies in the region get them too.
  • 53 votes
#1.2 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:47 AM EST

"Politically, it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom."
So there you have it....for all of you Religious fanatics! It looks like the Middle East is bringing you closer to you Heavenly Kingdom every day. .....
  • 24 votes
#1.3 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:55 AM EST

Mutually Assured Destruction worked with the Us and Russia because we/they are not suicidal. Not so with the nut cases in the Middle East. They blow themselves up with dynamite, just imaging how "glorious" these idiots will feel being nuked.
  • 70 votes
#1.5 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:00 AM EST
Vince from Maryland
Russia developed nuclear weapons because the US had them. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons because India had them. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it only makes sense that the Saudi's and the UAE would acquire them. That is what will keep the peace, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), is the only thing that will keep millions from getting killed and the world from being poisoned. A nuclear weapon has not been used on a population center since 11:02 am on August 11, 1945, when a US B-29 bomber dropped a single Mk-II "Fat Man" atomic bomb over Nagasaki, estimated population 240,000. MAD has worked to ensure peace for over 66 years. I don't want to see nuclear arms spread, but if Iran gets a nuclear weapon then it has already been proven that the only thing that will ensure peace is if their enemies in the region get them too.
  • 53 votes
#1.2 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:47 AM EST
Sorry to say Vince but you're incorrect. Iran has already VOWED to use nuclear weapons as soon as it has them in hand against both the US and Israel. Iran has made it clear that they WILL wipe both nations off the face of the earth. To make matters worse, Iran has also stated that as soon as it has nuclear weapons, it will share them with all muslim nations!
This is not about peace but rather about control. Islam's religion demands that muslims rule the earth and if it means using military power to do then that wil what they will do. By dropping the bomb on any nation, specifically the US and Israel, the muslims believe this will bring their messiah back to rule the earth. We are not dealing with a mentality that you can negotiate with. This is not an option for them but rather a neccessity. Is it unthinkable for them NOT to do this.
The world needs to wake up at last and fully understand the crisis at hand. If we don't deal with them first then they will deal with us asap!
  • 38 votes
Vince from Maryland
Russia developed nuclear weapons because the US had them. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons because India had them. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it only makes sense that the Saudi's and the UAE would acquire them. That is what will keep the peace, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), is the only thing that will keep millions from getting killed and the world from being poisoned. A nuclear weapon has not been used on a population center since 11:02 am on August 11, 1945, when a US B-29 bomber dropped a single Mk-II "Fat Man" atomic bomb over Nagasaki, estimated population 240,000. MAD has worked to ensure peace for over 66 years. I don't want to see nuclear arms spread, but if Iran gets a nuclear weapon then it has already been proven that the only thing that will ensure peace is if their enemies in the region get them too.
  • 53 votes
#1.2 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:47 AM EST
 
Sorry to say Vince but you're incorrect. Iran has already VOWED to use nuclear weapons as soon as it has them in hand against both the US and Israel. Iran has made it clear that they WILL wipe both nations off the face of the earth. To make matters worse, Iran has also stated that as soon as it has nuclear weapons, it will share them with all muslim nations!
This is not about peace but rather about control. Islam's religion demands that muslims rule the earth and if it means using military power to do then that wil what they will do. By dropping the bomb on any nation, specifically the US and Israel, the muslims believe this will bring their messiah back to rule the earth. We are not dealing with a mentality that you can negotiate with. This is not an option for them but rather a neccessity. Is it unthinkable for them NOT to do this.
The world needs to wake up at last and fully understand the crisis at hand. If we don't deal with them first then they will deal with us asap!
  • 38 votes
#1.9 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:20 AM EST
 

Comment author avatarCarlof   Restored
I agree with Barry. These dopes are dumb enough to beleive they will be granted 72 virgins in heaven if they blow themselves up. If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia will get the bomb. Iran will eventually launch, which will lead Saudi Arabia to counter.

Population Iran = 75,000,000


Population Saudi Arabia = 27,000,000

Number of young virgins needed for pedophiles (assuming half population is male) = 3,672,000,000

Sorry ladies, you are the real losers of this conflct
  • 33 votes
#1.12 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:40 AM EST

Simon - Please provide a link to support your statement that Iran has publicly stated that once they have the bomb they will use it agianst us and Israel. I find this rather hard to believe considering they have continued to deny that they are even building or attempting to build a bomb. You claim they have said they will use the bomb to destroy us as soon as they have it, but the reality is they continue to deny even trying to attain it, so please provide some evidence to support your claim. The truth is that all of you can call me naive or stupid, but the Iranain regime is not has crazy or suicidal as most of you think. This is a way for the current leaders to solidify their hold on power and whether or not you like to admit it they are pretty pragmatic, and know that if they attacked Israel it is Iran that would be wiped off the map. The goal of the Iranians isn't their own destruction, but rather to disrupt Israel's nuclear hegemony in the region. This isn't about control but rather as a foil to the nuclear arsenal of Israel. Having nukes would allow greater impunity to its proxies such as Hamas, but would not be used in a pre-emptive attempt to destroy Israel. Simon all your doing is spreading lies and war mongering
  • 15 votes
#1.17 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:12 AM EST


Carlof,
Sorry ladies, you are the real losers of this conflct
Your post was hilarious! Thanks for bringing some humor to this morning....Iran's nuclear direction isn't funny, I
know, but it's nice to have some humor thrown in anyway!!
  • 14 votes
#1.18 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:15 AM EST

The Saudi statement is designed to deter Iran from developing nuclear weaponry. That makes sense. I hope it works. It certainly adds considerable weight to the recent 'announcement' that Israel is behind assassination of those working on nuclear weaponry in Iran and that most of the international community doesn't mind that a bit.
As for MAD, it is an appropriate acronym; it wastes resources, costs a lot, and is more than a little crazy. In this day and age, we don't need nuclear weapons. We haven't reached the era when we can scrap them all (witness the puke that ran North Korea until recently, the puke that took over from him, and the puke that pretends to be 'supreme' in Iran).
Nuclear power plants are a different issue, however. In the long run, it is inevitable that Iran will develop nuclear power plants, since they have uranium ore resources.
  • 6 votes
#1.19 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:17 AM EST
The questions:
How many lives are lost now for going in before they have a WMD?
How many lives will be lost once they get a WMD and use it?
Will Iran use it either directly or to bully other countries into obeying their radical religion and ideals?
Can we actually stop them without military intervention?
What military action would be sufficient to stop them? (i.e. genocide, driving them back to the stone age, replace current leadership with US puppet leaders...)
  • 2 votes
#1.21
- Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:24 AM EST
The goal of the Iranians isn't their own destruction, but rather to disrupt Israel's nuclear hegemony in the region.
You had a pretty good comment until you got to that part. Nuclear hegemony? Meaningless phrase.
You can say Iran having or building nuclear weapons invites attack and invasion but not having them didn't help or do anything for Iraq to defend itself from invasion.
I hope Ali Khamenei doesn't read that.
Nothing made sense ... till I read ...
Please tell us you're not trying to revive the Nazi fantasy of an international Jewish conspiracy. There are too many copies of Mein Kampf littering bookstores around the world already.
Number of young virgins needed for pedophiles ...
Not funny, just offensive. Comments like that are just mean-spirited bigotry. If that's not enough reason to stop, comments like that play into al Qaeda's hands.
Iran has already VOWED to use nuclear weapons as soon as it has them
That would be suicidal. Ali Khamenei may be a vicious dictator, but he is not suicidal.
US does not stop Iran from building a civilian nuclear facility unless it is under UN monitor to make sure it is not used for making nuclear weapons. If Iran complies with the UN Nuclear Watch Dog then there would be no more discussion here. Beside that, US or The West have no reason to stop Iran from building it. Yes
Agreed. Excellent comment.
  • 3 votes
#1.22 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:28 AM EST

Hegemony - authority or control: control or dominating influence by one person or group, especially by one political group over society or one nation over others. One of the synonoms SUPREMECY. Israel has nuclear supremacy in the Middle East and has had so since the late 1960's. This allows for greater latitude in the military decision making in Israel. I could argue that at the time if Iran had a nuclear weapon we probably would have never seen Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. If you and I want the same thing, but Im the only one with a gun, who do you think is gonna get it?
  • 8 votes
#1.23 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:38 AM EST

The middle East is the origin of civilization. At the end of the last ice age, the nomadic tribes of the drying savannahs resettled in crowded communities around the levant, and the river valleys of the Tigress and Euphrates and the Nile. The Sahara was a Savannah and so was Saudi Arabia. The resuling influx was the impetus to invent agriculture, to build cities, to create social laws and monumental architecture, institutional gavernment, and even writing and documentation. It was also in the middle east that larger armies and weapons technology, (iron and bronze age), became a result of the newfounded civilizations.
If there is a nuclear arms race in the middle east, it could also commence the end of civilization.
The scientist Julius Oppenheimer said, after the successful Trinity nuclear explosion, "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds". Perhaps he and his team are to blame for the knowledge of how to destroy each other, or perhaps it is human nature, our incentive to create such a device, and our quest to win and dominate at any cost, or to destroy our perceived enemy when we fail.
It is a strange irony, that the fusion of hydrogen on the sun is due to immense mass and gravitational pressure. On earth the fusion of hydrogen is caused by immense social and survival pressure to hold or resist dominion. It is as though survival pressure is a physical, inherent property of life, even to its demise.
Iran cannot afford to join the nuclear club, it will be the beginning of the end, they have too many enemies. Israel must eventually abandon its own and rely on the domion of others outside of the middle east, lest Oppenheimer's prophecy come true.
  • 10 votes
#1.25 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:42 AM EST
I hate to burst everyones bubble, but the problems arose many, many centuries ago and will continue until mankind is ultimately destroyed. People profess superiority through religious philosophies and wage wars in the name of freedom, but God knows what is in every mans heart, and from what I can see, most men are heartless. The NWO is being established today, and those that rule it will do so in the name of peace yet will require everyone to adhere to strict policies, which will be presented with monetary enticement via an international currency. We may prolong or even deny our foretold demise, but we may all rest assured that true vengence will be left to God.
  • 3 votes
#1.30 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:04 AM EST

The 9/11 bombers were Saudi's not Iranians, why would anyone think that the Iranians would do something as evil as the Saudi's did? If history counts you must remember that it was the Saudi's who attacked us not Iranians.
  • 5 votes
#1.29 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:57 AM EST

Give it a rest Mike! Saying it was the Saudi's who attacked us on 9/11 would be like calling Oklahoma City a civil war. I mean it was the Americans that attacked us, right? What you are doing is holding an entire country responsible for the actions of a handul of its most extreme citizens. Your comment is reckless in the fact that it alludes to the Saudi government having sponsored those terrorist, which is completly untrue. Imagine if the whole world judged America and all Americans by the most ignorant bigotted rants on this site. Would that be fair?
  • 6 votes
#1.32 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:14 AM EST
The 9/11 bombers were Saudi's not Iranians, why would anyone think that the Iranians would do something as evil as the Saudi's did? If history counts you must remember that it was the Saudi's who attacked us not Iranians.
You're forgetting three things:
1. Saudi Arabia has what the world wants: OIL,
2. We didn't invade Saudi Arabia because those who flew those airplanes into our buildings were from the same group that tried unsuccessfully to OVERTHROW the Saudi government itself, and
3. Saudi Arabia is BY FAR the wealthiest nation over there, and they have NO interest ( I repeat- NIL) in rocking the boat. They have FAR more at stake than the practically failed state of Iran does.
  • 9 votes
#
1.33 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:14 AM EST

Hypocrisy, to ask others to do what you yourself wouldn't. Even when espousing democracy we want to make it quite clear that some humans are more equal than others.
  • 5 votes
#1.
34 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:20 AM EST
@Judsi:
The reason(s) the US is getting to build not one but two new nuclear reactors are:
1. We're not a theocratic nation of radical terrorist hell-bent on converting the rest of the world to our state-religion or kill them if they resist.
2. To thumb our noses at Iran because we have both things they want, nuclear power and nuclear bombs.
3. To move towards consuming less terrorist oil for energy production, thus cutting a major source of their funding.
And finally, we nuked Japan, not once, but twice, and the world is still here. Granted, those were much smaller yields, but we've learned so much since vaporizing those two cities we're positive we could a much better job next time.
  • 3 votes
#1.35 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:24 AM EST
It's all about religion. Religion has killed more humans than any other cause of death. It seems that the less intelligent people are the strongest believers. To blow yourself up so you can go to heaven is pretty dumb. That is what the religious leaders teach the suicide bombers. Muslims are taught to destroy the infidels, anybody who isn't Muslim. Iran is a Muslim country. You figure it out.
  • 1 vote
#1.37 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:29 AM EST
Actually its nothing more than an excuse to acquire nukes with a plausible explanation,why weren't the saudi's demanding the same when the U.S. gave nukes to israel or why weren't they whinning about india having over 40 and pakistan with 23 nukes? At least Iran was willing to sign Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT which allows International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect the facilities and control the purchase of fuel and monitor the spent fuel.
  • 1 vote
#1.38 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:31 AM EST
Ed-1118000
MICHAEL-595198 Just how did you come the the conclusion Obama wants to be "king of the world?" Or was that your sad attempt at blaming Obama for everything , every chance you get?
What makes you think he doesn't? Wouldn't any politician love to be the "king of the world"? Now who's being nieve?
Israel will attack Iran before they produce any kind of nuclear war head. Heck, they already are killing off their nuclear scientists.
#1.42 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:57 AM EST
Israel has nuclear supremacy in the Middle East and has had so since the late 1960's.
Big deal. That is a deterrent to Israel's neighbors attempting to 'wipe them off the map'. Iran has no such realistic concerns. "Breaking the Israeli nuclear hegemony" is not a legitimate policy goal.
Nuclear weapons for Israel are essentially a defensive deterrent. They are NOT an option on offense, and have nothing to do with military decisions regarding Gaza.
If you and I want the same thing, but Im the only one with a gun, who do you think is gonna get it?
The gun is irrelevant. You wouldn't use it, so I'm not afraid of it.
Are we talking about the last potato chip in the bowl (you can have it even without the gun) or you wanting to kidnap my family (in which case waving your gun around wouldn't prevent me from trying to stop you no matter what)?
By the way, I really like your first post, except for the "nuclear hegemony" part. Keep up the good work.
  • 2 votes
#1.43 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:02 AM EST
The 9/11 bombers were Saudi's not Iranians, why would anyone think that the Iranians would do something as evil as the Saudi's did? If history counts you must remember that it was the Saudi's who attacked us not Iranians.
Most of the terriorist involved in the bombings of September 11, 2001, were originally of Saudi Arabia nationality. They were not part of Saudi Arabia nation though. Your parallel is about as equivalent as saying that your are a terrorist because Jihad Jane was an American and you are an American.
That being said with regards to Iran, it has been showed several times over the last 2-3 decades that Iran has given covert support to Hezbollah and Hommas. Most nations have classified these organizations as terrorist organizations. It has been stated that the elite guard of Iran attempted to have the Saudi ambassador to the United States assassinated, of which even Turkey has stated they believe. It may be in doubt that Iran would use or see that a nuclear weapon they created to be used. When making the decision as to what they could do, all we have to judge such actions is their past actions. And to be prepared to accept the outcome if we are wrong on our decisions. Are you prepared to accept the outcome if you are wrong?
  • 1 vote
#1.46 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:20 AM EST
Much of the discussion on this thread is bankrupt --- either the short-sighted "bomb 'em all" rants of the hawks and right wing or the "maybe if we just ignore 'em they'll go away" thinking of the doves and far left wing. Teddy Roosevelt had it right --- "Speak softly and carry a big stick." It was TR who negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War. And it was TR who dealt with the Kaiser when he was preparing to invade the United States. (Hadn't heard that one, had you?) TR used the most basic of naval maneuvers and diplomacy to completely humiliate the Kaiser. The trouncing was so thorough that it was kep[t sub rosa for decades, but ended up being one of the major causes of WWI.
Saudi Arabia does not leak this sort of stories. They have repeatedly stated in the past that if Iran goes nuclear, then they must re-examine their positions. Nothing new here. But if the Saudi government is letting this sort of thing get into the press, it is a certain sign that they are sending Iran a clear message.
And one small correction: While many Saudi Arabians are Sunni, as is most of the Arab world, (only Iran and Iraq are predominantly Shiite) the ruling elite in The Kingdom are Wahhabi (Salafis.) The Wahhabis are so far to the right of Sunnis that they actually advocate the destruction of huge popular mosques and all sites of religious veneration, including Mecca's religious buildings.
The only viable solution to a nuclear-armed Middle East similar to the nuclear-armed Sub Asia, is exactly what is described in the article. The nuclear superpowers of the US, China, Russia, France and Britain should create a "force guarantor" that would guarantee a nuclear-free Middle East by simply assuring that any country developing a nuclear weapon would be subject to immediate retaliation, without prior UN consultation, together or singly, against any country known to develop nuclear weapons. The major presumption would be caused by a nuclear bomb test of any type. But this will never work because it would require Israel to both give up their nuclear weapons and to allow international inspection --- both of which they refuse to do. Israel is so far out of the loop that they are still denying that they have nuclear weapons (while threatening to use them) and do not allow inspectors based on the premise that they have no nuclear weapons to inspect (while castigating Iran for making the same argument.) Israel's current policies and government are a guarantee that there will be a nuclear-armed Middle East. First Iran, then Saudi Arabia in some sort of peninsular coalition, then Egypt, then Syria.
And for people who claim that Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is workable, you are mad (as in insane.) MAD was at best a very tenuous understanding between two technologically advanced and secular countries. MAD led us to the brink of war in the Cuban Missile Crisis and it took both huge concessions to the Russians in conjunction with extreme sabre-rattling and intense diplomacy to prevent it from actually happening. But MAD requires that a) it be no more than two countries, b) that both countries have some sort of rational government, c) that the military and government are entirely secular, and d) that there is never a single miscalculation by anyone on either side.
If you tried MAD with Middle Eastern countries:
a) there are too many countries involved with too many squabbles pending to keep track of. If two nuclear countries are a baseline, then three nuclear countries would be six times as complex a situation. Four countries would be 24 times as complex and so on.
b) it is difficult to see some of these governments as stable enough to be called "rational." Israel has had a series of religious pandering right-wing coalition governments they depend on tension with the Arabs to stay in power. Iran has a religious government and is a Persian country that wished to lead an Arab community. Saudi Arabia is a fricking 16th century religious dynastic kingdom, Egypt is in the midst of a huge transformation, most likely to a right-of-center religious government. And Syria is falling apart at the seams and has passed the breakeven point of becoming a failed state. None of these countries are capable of rational government at this time.
c) the nature of religious politics is that they are not rational. Any time you interject the supernatural into politics, you get a failed governmental solution. It doesn't matter what religion or culture, it always fails. And this applies to Jews just as much as to Muslims.
d) But the best reason that prohibits MAD is that the governments in the Middle East are fragile on their good days and self-destructive the rest of the time. This is an environment that just begs for miscalculations. All it takes is one low-level military officer who flips out to start a nuclear war. All it takes is one bluff that gets called. All it takes is one stament that gets made into a sound bite. And a nuclear war can start. A good example of the kind of thing that gets out of hand is Iran's supposed vows to destroy Israel. The full quote says that "Islam will wipe Israel from the map of history." That is not exactly Iran threatening to bomb Israel. But it's the kind of jingoism that fuels hawks.
  • 4 votes
#1.47 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:21 AM EST
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)