Comments on: Update V: BUSH IN A BRA

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:28:07 +0000

@Greenhell. “I can’t imagine being scared of a gallon of gasoline” A crop duster carries a lot more than a gallon of pesticide. A Lockheed 18 Loadstar has a 5K pound capacity; however, the specific of how much gasoline is necessary to burn up all the available oxygen and cause death of all breathing things in the local area was not the intent of my comment. The comments about dropping the Nuke were equally non practical. I’m not a scientist.
The point is just because the potential for harm exists, there is “NO REASON FOR THE US TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN.” In fact the danger I see is for us to continue an open border policy along the US and Mexico/Canada borders and rampant immigration. If Germany, France, Israel, Syria, Egypt believe that the problem warrants action, they and not us should take it. If they want help, they can ask, but we shouldn’t make the decisions for them.

By: Frank Brady

Frank Brady — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:02:01 +0000

The War Party’s hyperventilation over Iran’s alleged proximity to nuclear weapons development has reached the hysterical stage. There’s not much to love about the Mullahs–but there’s nothing to be gained by lying about their capabilities or the meaning of their pronouncements, a tactic engaged in by War Party spokesmen at every opportunity. Enriching uranium to below the 20% level (which is required to fuel Iran’s US-built medical isotopes reactor and which is what the Iranians actually announced) is a long, long way from the 90% enrichment level required to produce nuclear weapons. Please see the article at http://tiny.cc/3jjyJ about the since-withdrawn AP article that provoked the latest furor.

In the race to see who can tell the most audacious lies, it’s too close to call between Obama’s idiot Marxists and the War Party’s lunatics.

By: haym

haym — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:49:06 +0000

Here I am speaking of Iran. One can make the case that where nuclear weapons are about to be placed in the arsenal, the line between a just preemptive war and an unjust one is hard to place before the fact. After the fact it will be too late.

Thus, an Israeli preemptive destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities can be supported, since the Iranians have repeatedly promised to destroy Israel given the opportunity. [We agree.]

The case for an American action of this type can be made in light of the devastation that is possible with very limited nuclear capabilities. (And why not North Korea you may ask? That is a good point. And one day we may regret not removing their offensive capabilities. Especially since they help the Iranians. But at least they keep their wishes hidden, and their culture does not appear to be immune to the threat of mutually assured destruction, as the Iranian and Muslim belief system appear to be.)

Too much is at stake here. And regardless of what one thinks of the Iraqi war, there was some belief that this was the case then as well. Not just by Americans, but apparently by most Western and other intelligence. And if we were wrong then, that does not mean we are wrong now.

By: ~greenhell~

~greenhell~ — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:29:48 +0000

Robert, I disagree with your statement that if you “release gasoline out of a crop duster at five thousand feet, toss out a flare, [you will get a] good clean bomb that will wipe out a two square mile area without an EMP”

I can’t imagine being scared of a gallon of gasoline, even aerosolized, over 2 square miles. Looking at Wikipedia I’m seeing 132 MJ energy in a US gal of gasoline. Which is equivalent to about 62 sticks of dynamite (at 2.1 MJ per stick). Then this is released in open air? Maybe I can see fires starting if the area is dry, but wiping the area out? Do you have a web page showing the calculations for this? That’s 132 MJ of energy released over 111 million square feet (or 22 billion cubic feet of air at 200 feet for the crop duster) – It seems you’d hardly be able to measure the temperature increase.

I raise this point because so often the people in charge who want to go to war overestimate [you mean overinflate–IM] the threat posed and then that information gets spread around as fact.

By: haym

haym — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:22:03 +0000

The list of sources verifying the mischievous El-Baradei are numerous. Example: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1108564.html. Just do a search.

But I understand that it can be difficult to accept that the Paulian approach to foreign policy [on this site we discuss my approach, which is certainly not the same as Paul’s] is naive and misguided, and that reality sometimes makes it is necessary to take out an opponent before he can take you out. (The libertarian religion is blinded by its own dogma.)

The Israelis preempted in 67 [this was a just, preemptive war. Here, I discuss Just War]; did it again with the Iraqi nuclear plant Osirak in 1981 (???? ??????, Mivtza Opera), and did it again with the reactor in Syria. Had Paul been Prime Minister of Israel, the country would have ceased to exist in 1967, if not earlier. And there are many Paul-like Jews in Israel. Delusion and naivete can flourish even in the line of sight of an enemy’s gun pointed at your head.

In the US, we are fortunate to be relatively safe, mistakes are not life threatening, so we can survive – for a while at least – the left’s inanities, and the right’s incompetences.

The way I see it, there is not much difference between Paul/libertarian foreign policy and Carter foreign policy. In both cases we get stepped on. In both cases, our plan for survival is a defense of the nation when the attack reaches our shores.

That plan stopped working in WWII.

By: Van Wijk

Van Wijk — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:03:24 +0000

...say he played the war card. The War Card. At the moment I can't think of a more vile turn of phrase than that. Regarding an Iranian suitcase bomb, rather than invading every Muslim country that posed a nuclear threat, wouldn't it be easier to cease the flow of Muslim immigrants and travelers into the United States?

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:20:13 +0000

HAYM is correct, a simple nuke is easy to smuggle into the US. Take the tour to the top of the Empire state building, fire it off. Add a little virus or bacteria on this side of a city's water supply; contaminate a bottled water plant, spread disease in envelopes through the mail. I can really get to thinking, release gasoline out of a crop duster at five thousand feet, toss out a flare, good clean bomb that will wipe out a two square mile area without an EMP. Once Pandora’s Box is opened, we can never close it again. We have tried to keep it shut for years and the number of countries that want nukes, keep getting them. In the last eight years we watched North Korea do it. I can’t distinguish between an Arab breakfast and a Jewish breakfast; nor can I make foreign policy for either of them. Iran is within striking distance of Europe. European’s know what kind of danger Iran poses. Israel is comprised of bright intelligent people. Why not respect the people that are involved and then have the courtesy to let them make the decisions. [And don't enable them.]

By: Roy Bleckert

Roy Bleckert — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:16:08 +0000

“She will, for better or worse, SUCK OUT ALL THE AIR (media spotlight and grassroots support) from any other “conservative” alternative in 2012.”

MP- Maybe maybe not , my overall point is we all should be working on getting Constitutional/Liberty minded candidates elected on Nov. 2 2010

If Everyone would quit worrying or focusing on every little thing Palin does, like she is some kind of cult hero, we will all be better off

The more Liberty minded peeps we can get elected in Nov. will help shift the focus to the issues, instead of individuals & their super star status

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:10:37 +0000

Permit me to clarify about Sarah and “affirmative action” – her rise to Mayor of Wasilla and against the Murkowski machine in Alaska was on her own. McCain’s decision to annoint her was largely (if not entirely) because she was an attractive woman with conservative bonafides and to jumpstart his moribund campaign (which it did). Much of the heroine worship and media attention (pro and con) comes from this. It is not that much different than Bush # 1 choosing Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court over more experienced “conservative” jurists. In fact, it points out the difficulty of affirmative action in that those who even APPEAR to benefit from it have a hard time of erasing that “stigma” – ask Thomas about that.

Thank you, Jack, for the interesting reading on “Evita” in the Daily Bell. It is true that Sarah is a comely collection of multiple CONTRADICTIONS such as:

(a) limited government vs. neocon empire, (b) duty to country vs. walking off the job as governor, (c) support of McCain and the bailout vs. “rogue”….

She will, for better or worse, SUCK OUT ALL THE AIR (media spotlight and grassroots support) from any other “conservative” alternative in 2012.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:49:47 +0000

I have honestly have had enough of Sarah Palin and wish she would go away. I don’t think she is as clever as the FOX\GOP types would have us believe. To the contrary, I have heard nothing interesting or original from her. She seems only capable of parroting the usual Republican slogans.