Effect Measure

On Monday President Bush asked for another $46 billion dollars to send down the rat hole of his Iraq and Afghanistan debacles. That makes just about $200 billion dollars for this fiscal year. Two hundred billion dollars. Congress has already ponied up almost half a trillion dollars. Half a trillion. Trillion. A dollar bill is a bit more than 0.1 mm thick. This year’s 200 billion is 2 times 10⁷ meters, or a stack of dollar bills about 200,000 football fields in height, or about a 120 mile stack. That’s just this fiscal year. The estimated total is two and half times this.

For what. Oil. If that much money had been put into alternative energy sources we’d be a good way of the there by now. Instead it is going into bombs and bullets. Bombs and bullets don’t produce anything except destruction and death. But so far it’s been OK with the American public because they’ve been told we have God on our side. Just like the other side thinks they do.

Almost everyone outside the US sees this for what it is. Insanity. As I write this I’m sitting in the concourse of a European airport and I want to scream. What I want to scream is this: NO MORE KILLING IN MY NAME! NO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL IN MY NAME! NO MORE PIOUS EXCUSES FOR A VICIOUS AND MORALLY DEPRAVED POLICY IN MY NAME! NO MORE. NO MORE. NO MORE.

From across the ocean, the United States looks grotesquely distorted, a cruel caricature of itself. Maybe we need even more distance to make this right.

Random resources for those tired of waiting for our elected Congressthings to do what’s right:

War Resisters League
National War Tax Resistance
Coordinating Committee (NWTRCC)
The National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund
Fellowship of Reconciliation

Comments

#1 marquer
October 26, 2007

Congress has already ponied up almost half a trillion dollars.

Which does not actually cover the entire tab for the war.

Joe Stiglitz, who holds a modest academic honorarium known to the rest of us as the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, made a full-scope estimate of the total cost of the war, which included things for which the current Congress is not budgeting.

Those off-book line items include the cost of providing health care, rehabilitation and disability funding for thousands of crippled veterans, and the cost of replacing thousands of military vehicles and aircraft which will have been prematurely worn out by continual heavy service in a demanding environment. Oh, and interest payments on the debt incurred. Can’t forget that. The Chinese will not allow us to do so.

Stiglitz estimated the total cost at $1.2 trillion, and that was over two full years ago. I fully expect that the final tab for the twin wars will come in over the $2T mark. That’s around fifty thousand dollars per taxpaying household. Pony up!

–
#2 MoM
October 26, 2007

What I want to scream is this: NO MORE KILLING IN MY NAME! NO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL IN MY NAME! NO MORE PIOUS EXCUSES FOR A VICIOUS AND MORALLY DEPRAVED POLICY IN MY NAME! NO MORE. NO MORE. NO MORE.

Ever feel like you are screaming at a wall?
God forbid we’d provide health insurance for uninsured kids.
#3 herman
October 26, 2007

Bush has given his military commanders in the field the authority to launch tactical nuclear weapons, if they decide it is necessary.
Bush recently stated Iran’s effort to obtain nuclear weapons may cause WWIII.
Putin, when he was in Iran, stated that any attack on Iran would be the same as an attack on Russia.
Who will use the oil during a nuclear winter?
#4 herman
October 26, 2007

Nuclear winter is a hypothetical global climate condition that is predicted to be a possible outcome of a large-scale nuclear war. It is thought that severely cold weather can be caused by detonating large numbers of nuclear weapons, especially over flammable targets such as cities, where large amounts of smoke and soot would be injected into the Earth’s stratosphere. The term has also been applied to one of the after-effects of an asteroid impact or supervolcano eruption.
#5 Michael
October 27, 2007

The really bad news is that there is a huge number of Americans who believe this war is for God and the American way. The blow back will kill many Americans and not just the Christian Jihadists among us.
#6 Lynne
October 27, 2007

You said, bombs and bullets produce only death and destruction. Yes, of course. But only a small part of the truth and one of the biggest reasons why stopping this madness is so hard — the money buys the financial infrastructure and manufacturing capacity and the research to produce the bombs and bullets and every other product needed to deliver them. That money is spent HERE, not in Iraq. Just think about the secondary effects that a redirection of $1trillion from productive labor and manufacturing to products that are literally being blown up, plus the redirection of the labor of all the troops and their support (millions of people) out of the national economy into a black hole means for the US. Even the richest economy in the history of the planet can not keep this up for long. We are being bled each and every one of us, even those few who are profiteering in the short run. The person who says there is no draft is blind. Oil is one part of the truth, but all the people I just named profit even if no oil is transferred. If fact, they profit in the short term even more if the oil supply becomes uncertain. You have released a rant in my soul. None of this is new and because it is invisible, noe of this is news either. Lynne
#7 bar
October 27, 2007

Lets put a bit more perspective on “half a trillion dollars”

That is 50% more than the market capitalization of Microsoft. According to Wikipedia, “The value of U.S. subprime mortgages is estimated at $1.3 trillion..”

On the other hand, terrorism is not simple. A Sufi parable about the sage Nasrudin puts the terrorism threat succinctly. When a friend visited, Nasrudin was sprinkling salt around his house.

The friend asked “What are you doing that for Nasrudin?”

“This is to keep the tigers away.”

“But there are no tigers around here!”

“Yes” replied Nasrudin, “effective, isn’t it.”
#8 M. Randolph Kruger
October 27, 2007

Well folks I can say that just about every Democrat signed on for this too… Including Harry the Rectum Reed, Hillary and most of the ones that demogogue the process in the media. You have to convince Congress its time to go folks.

Me, I dont think its time to go and its really not about oil. They arent producing any for the better part in Iraq. Its only 2.2 and they export about 1.6 million a day. Its a drop in the bucket. They used to produce 4.3 a day during high demand. But like sewage, you gotta have power to pump oil. Its like thick mud so they have to have power to pump. It aint happening but by Xmas the new generators will be on line and the power as I understand it will go up to near 15 hours a day for nearly everywhere with known blackouts so as to run the infrastructure at night. So why in hell are we there? Might it just be to prevent something from destroying the economies of the world such as a Al-Qaeda or the Iranians. You do know they lay claim to all of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Israel right? The actually think they own it because when the Brits were there they carved the place up into these little countries they got shafted. Persia extended to Lebanon and the Turk border even then. So its not about oil, its about stability. At 60 bucks a barrel alternative energy became feasible and we are at 92 today. Thats mighty feasible. They start seeing 80 mpg cars and the price of gas is going to fall like a rock and kill that new industry. Right now they can get away with it. So much for “stealing” oil from them. 100 bucks a barrel is stealing? Right!

I agree with Revere to an extent. He is concerned with a war but its not really a war. Its a terror zone. We control everything but lose a few every couple of days. I DO want to know what they are spending that kind of money on though and its now the longest “operation” in US history. I personally believe they will use the money to knock Teheran off by October next. They have to do it before April to avoid the storms and the heat, or they have to go NLT mid-September for the same reasons. This money is very likely for that and I dont care if its 20 trillion dollars. We sit around talking about healthcare and how this could fund it. Not on my watch it wouldnt. Government does NOT need to be involved in healthcare. But indeed it could pay for UHC. In the same breathe I would also pipe up that even though it sounds good, it doesnt mean skippy unless you have international and domestic security. Not one damned thing. They could walk in, pop a cap in a hospital or a plane and we would be right back into a… well war. Its simply time to knock the snot out of the guys that are doing it and if and when they stop, we might be able to look at healthcare. Else wait for socialized medicine when you are 65…Its called Medicare and we will mostly be on it anyway so whats the diff?

Sorry Revere. I dont want to spend any of my money unnecessarily but this for the time being is a necessary evil. Bush’s plan should have just have marched us onward to Iran and finished the job. I do fault him for that. But we act now in the political arena too much rather than the action front. Indeed, its us or the Israelis and that might set off WWIV because they would have to use a nuke to do their dirty.
#9 Jonathon Singleton
October 27, 2007

Randy, howdy and hope you are well… Respectively dude, I do understand the ego crap (fear) of fundo thinking, “I’m right cos God-diddly-God is on my side blah, blah, blah!” But when Revere writes, “Almost everyone outside the US sees this for what it is. Insanity…”, I have to agree in the context of a pandemic — very likely we will lose half of humanity before vaccines can be manufactured and distributed (within the shit of social breakdown and chaos). Cool heads and new thinking for everyone — including them Iranian and Afghan men with a few penis issues!
#10 peggy
October 27, 2007

My very practical and common-sense husband said, after the Berlin wall fell, “There goes communism, and good riddance. Capitalism will be next.” Meaning, of course, our form of an extreme, radical interpretation of capitalism where the common good is not only expendable, but downright unpatriotic. We confuse our economic system (free market and increasingly unregulated capitalism) with our form of government (democracy). You’re right, Revere, it is insanity here in this country now. Only most Americans never escape the asylum long enough to get the “outside looking in” perspective that will be needed to wake us up.
#11 herman
October 27, 2007

Peggy, “it is insanity here in this country now.”
You are correct. Please read this:
Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the current leader in Republican opinion polls, called a military strike against Iran a �promise� rather than a threat, but said it would consist of air strikes using precision-guided bombs and missiles and thus should not be characterized as �war.�
If Bush does not declare martial law and start WWIII, then through voter fraud, Rudolph Giuliani will become the next president. Anyone who would say a military strike against Iran is a promise is insane.
Putin recently said the US is like a madman running around with a razor blade in his hand.
When you order bombs to be dropped on people to kill them, you are not involved in an act of war? What kind of deranged logic is that? If it is not an act of war, what is it?
#12 bar
October 27, 2007

Revere: “This year’s 200 billion is 2 times 10E7 meters, or a stack of dollar bills about 200,000 football fields in height, or about a 120 mile stack.”

I think that 2x10E7 meters is 20,000 KM which would probably be closer to a 12,000 mile stack.

Marquer. Dividing the final tab for the two wars of over 2 trillion dollars by the population of the USA (300 million) gives about $6,700 per capita. If the cost to each “household” is $50,000, does that mean that the average number of persons in each US household is (50,000/6,700) about seven and a half people?
#13 M. Randolph Kruger
October 27, 2007

Ditto Jonny.
#14 daedalus2u
October 27, 2007

The only think keeping the present Iranian regime in power is the external political pressure on them which they use to “explain” the dire economic straights Iran is in due to the mismanagement of the economy.

Iran is facing an energy crisis too because domestic energy prices are far below world market rates. If they were left alone, the Iranian street would revolt because there are no jobs, no way for young men to earn enough to afford a family.

What is propping up the Iranian regime is the external rhetoric. That is why Iran is so confrontational. They need the political rhetoric to stay in power and to justify the economic hard times that the population is suffering.
#15 Jonathon Singleton
October 28, 2007

Ta tres muchley Randy, I could have aimed that “schlong issues” comment a bit more on target ie. what daedalus2u describes as “the present Iranian regime in power” — a bigoted gaggle of hets and self-loathing closet queers, who’ve mismanaged the Iranian economy into recession.

I’ve had a luverly Aussie Sunday — healthy exercise and research analysis. I believe Brits and Japanese (in my GenX age bracket) can appreciate this cultural reference more than anyone else…

With a DVD music vid locked on track repeat, I spent half an hour with weights miming, “Too many broken hearts in the world. There’s too many dreams can be broken in two. Too many broken hearts in the world. So I won’t give up the fight for you”, before spending the afternoon reading and underlining key passages from parts 1+2 of CIDRAP’s “THE PANDEMIC VACCINE PUZZLE” series.

This camp Oz-Brit irony works on a number of levels, not least an application of this ’89 SAW/Donovan song to the following CIDRAP excerpt (our Jase used to luv the mind altering substances eg. Vodka):

“So absent the use of adjuvants ["mixers"] to stretch limited antigen ["vodka"] supplies, industry could produce at best enough vaccine for 750 million people, far short of the amount needed to cover the world’s 6.7 billion inhabitants (see Bibliography: WHO 2006: Global influenza action plan; WHO 2007: Projected supply of pandemic influenza vaccine; Palkonyay 2007).”
#16 daedalus2u
October 28, 2007

An appropriately timed editorial in the WP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102601867.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

When it is so “obvious” to so many that military intervention won’t achieve the stated goals, what are the unstated goals that it will achieve? Lynne pointed out what is obvious. Follow the money. The billions and trillions spent on war are spent here, and generate profits here, profits for those who are pushing for war, profits used to lobby for and elect politicians who will deliver the war that delivers the profits.
#17 marquer
October 28, 2007

…does that mean that the average number of persons in each US household is (50,000/6,700) about seven and a half people?

Your arithmetic is correct, but based upon a different starting premise. I calculated based upon not total households per se, but taxpaying households, of which there are fewer than actual households. Many US households do not generate enough taxable income to yield any appreciable federal 1040 revenue.

Of course, those households full of welfare families and retirees are also on the hook for the national war bill, every bit as much as are the households which do generate enough income to pay substantial federal taxes.

And in the end, all Americans will have to pay, either in higher taxes or in fewer government benefits and subsidies.

Although what can be reliably predicted from recent US political and economic history is that the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers will end up suffering the least once the butcher’s bill is tabulated and presented.

–
#18 albatross
October 29, 2007

I find it interesting that Jerry Pournelle (who’s proudly somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun) has made the same point about the money. Basically, if we’d spent the money we’ve poured down the drain in Iraq on, say, building nuclear power plants and funding research into electric cars, we’d soon be able to ignore most of what happened in the Middle East.

I expect Bush will start a war with Iran before he leaves office, as he has nothing to lose, and would probably like a chance to throw a “hail Mary” and save his reputation. And I have great faith in my country’s media and politicians: when we blow up a bunch of stuff with bombers and cruise missiles and special forces, it will be legitimate military action. When Iran blows up a bunch of stuff here with truck bombs and remote-triggered bombs and Iranian agents, it will be terrorism, pure and simple. And anyone who says different on TV will literally be hounded off the air, and probably will not be safe in public for several months.
#19 M. Randolph Kruger
October 29, 2007

Albie-This time around it will likely be with full UN support. I think that GWB and Rice are going to try the diplomatic route first. But take my word for it, they aint going to leave office with those nuke sites being on the map, either dismantled or destroyed. Plain and simple. If we dont do it the Israelis will and THAT will put some really bad things into motion. Iraq is one issue, Iran is another. We should have hit them first rather than Iraq.

Problem with terrorists is that when they dont fear you and what you can do they do what they want, when they want and exact a price from you each time. How many WTC’s, Locherbie’s, airliners in the desert or embassies does it take to get you to come around. Hillary? Shit, she would just sit around and try to negotiate with them. Then they get the bomb and then they TELL us what they are going to do. Just like N. Korea did with our money and food. It just freed up cash that they needed to fire up their reactors.
#20 stu
October 29, 2007

I think about Iraq often. Why are we there, how long will this take, etc. I do believe that only time will tell if this was the best course of action, given 9/11 and the rise of terrorism over the last 10 years. I believe there is a valid comparison between the 1930s and the present, then you had fascists now you have Islam. Inaction or ineffective measures will lead to a terrible outcome, just as then.

My wife and I have had this discussion “well what if the US packed up, retreated to the continental US, and let the world take care of itself?”. I mean, we spend 250 BILLION each and every year on defense, how much has that cost over the last 50 years? Far more than Iraq. Was is worth it? Is it still worth it? What would happen if we adopted the Swedish model? Would there then be a Greater Mideast Coprosperity Sphere, run by Islamic hotheads? My bet is yes, and eventually we would be targets since we are atheist infidels or Christian pig-dogs or Israel lovers or something.

You could see that after the Cold War there was a winding down of defense spending, and a sense of a peace dividend. All that changed on 9/11. I’m still stuck on the fact that Saudi terrorists killed 2500 people and would kill more if they could. We need to prevent a repeat of this, how is up for debate I suppose but it seems this is a long-term threat and it will take a long time to stop it.

I’m curious about one thing; what would President Revere have done on September 12, 2001? Just wondering, I know that many disagree with our current strategy but what else would work?
#21 daedalus2u
October 29, 2007

MRK, I have a question, how much destruction in Iran will it take for the Iranian people to surrender? How many military sites destroyed, how many underground nuclear installations destroyed before they surrender and give up?

When you have answered that question, let me ask you another. How much destruction of the US would it take for the US to surrender? How many US cities would have to be destroyed by nuclear weapons, either from states or from terrorists before you, MRK, would surrender? I suspect that there is no number, tens, hundreds, thousands of cities could be destroyed and you would not surrender.

What basis do you have for assuming the Iranians have a lower threshold for surrendering than you do? Are they so much more rational? So much more loving of life? So much more afraid of dying?
#22 M. Randolph Kruger
October 30, 2007

Deadie-Its like this. I dont care about the conjecture your are making on this. Its irrelevant in the bright shining light of what has happened to US across the last oh, 35 years or so at the hands of terrorists. Be it Saddam, Khomeini, Rasafjani, MoG. There is a group and its motivated, well funded that has a bad habit of killing Americans and our allies. In particular the French have wussied out and they are paying the price. Its like today when a certain mullah stated that if we dont change our ways in dealing with Muslims that they will start bombing the cities of that country. Fine, I say in that case we round them up and put them into no shit detention camps the second that it happens. We can call it for their own protection because about 10 seconds after the first bomb goes off they’ll declare martial law and that gives whomever is in the White House the right to stick the Constitution up everyones butt.

As for the Iranians, their history is clear and its one of domination. I dont give one big rats ass what the Iranians think. When we didnt hit them for attacking our embassy and taking our people hostage in 1979, they knew they had us. Carter gutted the military for all the social programs he introduced and then, whoops there goes the economy too. But this crosses religious, social and physical boundaries. I said that we will go with UN approval and I am saying it now. Iran is history before Xmas of 2008. Take it to the bank. Take out a loan to cover the oil costs but its about to happen.

But to directly address your question Deadie. Not much to get them to give up. In fact they might do the leadership themselves. I doubt that they would give up if we just hit their nuke facilities though. No point to give up then. I suspect Deadie that you and others would throw up the white flag and convert to Islam the second they rolled into country though. Thats not a slam, its an observation. Me? I would be out figuring ways to send them to see Allah on the fastest method possible at hand.

I repeat from previous posts Deadie.. They just didnt kill enough people in New York to keep your attention. When a whole city goes up, you’ll get it. If you think we are not at war then you are entitled. Watch what happens if we quit fighting it and start negotiating. Its worked so well for us in the past. Dead people do NOT attack you. Its a mathematical fact. If they wont cease their terrorist activities, then fine make them pay for their problems in blood and so much of it that they might just start thinking that being jihadist aint such a good idea. Never the leadership, just the people that they whip up to go and die in the name of God. Hmmmm….

So whats your lets give the world a big hug point? I hear this all the time and you had it under Gimme Jimmy, and WJC. We had the worst attacks in US history on our sovereignty and they did nothing about it. Why did they get away with it? Could it be that political correct also leads to the thought that we can take the hit and keep on ticking?

How about Chicago or Atlanta next time Deadie, or Sydney, Perth, London. There are kids in this town that were mauled by the bombings in London and they were just school kids on a tour. So your points while they may be lofty, aint reality. Stop the terrorism, stop attacking our troops, stop destablizing the governments of Pakistan and Iraq and then we might talk. Else, I have a 500 pounder with their names on it. I dont know how many it would take for them to surrender but I am damned sure willing to find out.
#23 daedalus2u
October 30, 2007

I see, so your “solution” is a war of annihilation. Kill every last Muslim, every last Iranian because a few are jihadists. One �reason� the US embassy was captured in 1979 was because the CIA overthrew the elected Iranian government in 1953 and imposed a brutal dictatorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPAJAX

Your �solution� is to bomb the shit out of Iran and then they will become a peace loving nation at peace with its neighbors? Has that ever happened? The Iran-Iraq war cost Iran a million casualties. Did they surrender? Did that cause the regime to topple? No, it strengthened the regime. Likely a US attack would do the same. Iranian ex-pats had �predicted� the Iranian regime would collapse in the Iraq war too.

�Also, rather than turning against the Ayatollah’s government as exiles had promised, the people of Iran rallied around their country and mounted a stiff resistance.�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

You ignore the fact that Russia won�t tolerate the use of enough nuclear weapons on Iran to accomplish what you feel needs to be done. Any use of nuclear weapons in Iran will cause fallout to land in Russia, and will likely cause Russian casualties. How many casualties will Russia find acceptable before telling Bush to stop?
#24 M. Randolph Kruger
October 30, 2007

So Deadie, you are going to negotiate? Okay, we wil put you in charge. We paid 6 billion for the Iranian hostages. Reagan was to take office the next day. So Gimme Jimmy Carter got them out…. finally.

As for the overthrow, yes it did happen. None of the people running the show then are alive now or in positions of authority. About the same here except for maybe Clark Clifford. But, that was then, this is now You are talking about nukes. We dont need them to take out their nuke facilities. Might not be such a good idea to put a nuke in with more fissionables anyway.

The Israelis though would and it would be the first cross border war with a country in between. They would have to use nukes to take it out as they dont have the strategic bomber capability we know of. Those old 707-320′s fitted out would make a nice refueler bomber though. No choice in their minds and you are absolutely right that the Russians, Chinese, Paki’s, and Indians would be six kinds of pissed off. I have posted on this MANY times before Deadie and as early as a year ago. This alone may require us to do it to prevent it. The Chinese have no love for the Iranians. They will sell to them but they have their own Muslim problem population.

As for killing them all. Hmmm I doubt it would be necessary. But I would do it in a heartbeat if I knew for sure it would end this. Just as they would us. Sinatra sang New York, New York for the last time a few years ago. Lets hope that we all get to sing it for years to come. If I were a terrorist, that would be my target and I would hit it again and again and again.

Hence, these guys had better wake up and smell the coffee because if they dont they are going to get hit, HARD by someone. What the Russian response would be is and would be tempered by our military presence there. Dont blame Bush. It goes back 30 years and the fact is that we had left the country with only a small contingent in an embassy that the Iranians were to respect by international law. They didnt and as far as I am concerned it was under that same international law an act of war. We just didnt responde.

Look I am not looking for anyone to take a CO status with the military. Far from it. When diplomacy doesnt work the only other option is the military. Everyone is calling Iraq a mistake. Mistake in what? Proper Etiquette? Hell no. Saddam at any cost maybe not, but he is and was the line in the sand. I wonder if the Kuwaiti’s feel the way you do Deadie. Sneak attack, then an attack on Saudi Arabia.. Hey now theres diplomacy for you. Fake surrenders in tanks. Some of those Kuwaiti’s paid for what has been an on going undeclared war for the last 30 years with their lives. What do you say to them? Negotiate. Have the US pull out? Shit no. They are negotiating for a permanent base there and it was they who initiated it.

Undeclared war. How about Locherbie? How about that Airbus we shot down over the Straits. Little things you dont know, dont understand or care about. The aircraft was squawking on military code 1, inbound on a battle group, and in light of previous attacks we shot it down after they were warned on all available frequencies. Didja remember the pictures….Those horrific pictures? You know the ones where the bodies were all bloated up and floating at sea. Bodies dont do that in under 8 hours even in the warm waters and they didnt even have any fish food marks on them. Why? Because the airplane was stuffed with dead people. How convenient. So I wish you lefties would quit giving cover and there is a line that aids and comforts the enemy. I dont mean that to be mean. But we are all tired of a war. The latest paychek for it makes me ask questions….For WHAT? We are running some combat missions each day, the insurgents are on the run. Holding ships at sea when they would be at …sea disturbs me. air missions are every day, but they would be running ….air missions. Revere does make good points about the military at time and I am looking to the “FOR WHAT.” So far I have found that our other missions in Aghanistan and Kosovo are included in that appropriation along with retrofits and something ath mgiht mean Iran. I dont know just yet as it reads like electronics installation instructions.

But here is something you need to consider. Enemy is defined as follows:

1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.
2. a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
b. A member or unit of such a force.
3. A group of foes or hostile forces. See Usage Note at collective noun.
4. Something destructive or injurious in its effects: “Art hath an enemy called Ignorance” Ben Jonson.

Some would apply 4 to a military situation. They would be dead nearly immediately or throwing in with the people from 1 above. You can still oppose wars, the people who start them. Me, I always look for ways to defuse them. I think that Iran has had ample opportunity and even the UN Chief investigator says they are building a bomb. Iran was invited to a negotiation about their nuke program by Russia, China, the US and a couple of others. They declined. But they sure keep building facilities, they keep moving missiles to Syria, they keep trying to destabilize Pakistan, they keep funding the Syrians, Al Qaeda and they are actively trying to put people into Mexico and have done so. We had almost 3000 Arabic names changed in one county in one quarter to Spanish sounding ones. I guess we are just too stupid. They must be doing it to reduce hostility against M. Eastern people right now. Uh…..We are actively being hostile to Mexicans so why not change your name to Bubba Johnson instead.

The wind is already sown Deadie. We will just have to wait and see who reaps the whirlwind, them, us or all of us.
#25 daedalus2u
October 31, 2007

You are delusional if you think that hardened underground facilities can be taken out with conventional weapons. If they can be, the next ones will be 1000 feet underground, which makes them invulnerable even to nuclear weapons. Then what?

There is nothing fissionable in any of the Iranian nuclear facilities. They are years away from having a working centrifuge, years away from having enough centrifuges to make a working cascade, years away from running that cascade long enough to get a critical mass of weapons grade uranium. They don’t have a reactor, so they don’t have a means of making plutonium.

You don’t seem to understand that there are no “secrets” about nuclear weapons. Guys with slide-rules 60 years ago built them in 4 years from scratch, not knowing if it was even possible. There is simply no way to prevent a nation from acquiring nuclear weapons if they decide they want them.

So the US can take “revenge” for a hostage taking 30 years ago where no one was killed, but the Iranians can’t take “revenge” for the CIA coup 26 years earlier? Which killed many Iranians and deprived all of them their freedom?

30 years ago, the biggest threat was the Soviet Union. Where is the Soviet Union now? Disintegrated with no one firing a shot. It disintegrated because the Soviet people decided they didn’t like living a crummy life in a crummy communist nation where the “leaders” made their lives crummy and miserable.

If the Iranian “leaders” didn’t have the external threat of “the Great Satan”, the Iranian people would blame those “leaders” for the crummy lives they are living in a crummy Islamic republic.

It is informative that the collapse of the Soviet Union caught the CIA and military analysts by surprise. Pretty big blind spot to not see that coming. Not surprising when you look at the only “tools” they work with. It is said that if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The only tool the Bush administration has is military intervention. To them, the only solution to every problem is military intervention. Military intervention in Iraq will at best set back their nuclear program to square zero. 60 years ago, 4 years was enough time to build nuclear weapons from scratch. All military intervention in Iran does is buy 4 years time.

Military intervention in Iraq to prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons is the equivalent of the “peace in our time” mantra of the 1930′s. Buying a temporary “peace” at the expense of (as you suggest) a future whirlwind. A course of action that will provide the Iranians with the national will to make acquisition of nuclear weapons the national priority, and the will to use those nuclear weapons against civilian targets in the US. The course of action that you suggest will (in my opinion) guarantee the use of nuclear weapons on US soil. The example of North Korea shows that if a nation doesn’t want to be attacked by the US, all they need to do is have some nuclear weapons. That makes acquisition of nuclear weapons a pretty high priority for every nation worried about being attacked by the US.
#26 M. Randolph Kruger
October 31, 2007

Deadie….. I can assure you that we have the technology to do it, without nukes. We would peel it back like an onion blow, by blow by blow. Remember old son I was in the USAF.

By the way you are out of touch when it comes to what the Iranians have. It doesnt matter what kind of gas centrifuge that they have, just that it works. It has but one purpose and that is to compress gas, to make metal and then they can mill it to the proper specs with the very nice french CNC machines that were sold to them illegally. How nice you are up on all this Deadie!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/01/nuclear.iran/index.html
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/natanz03_02.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0501/p08s02-comv.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/14/opinion/ediran.php
http://svarchive.blogspot.com/2006/04/iran-centrifuge-connection.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601773.html

Listen, they are making bombs pure and simple and when they get one they will use it. On whom will be the question. It will force us out of the Gulf, force the Saudi and others to sell oil at whatever price they dicate. I have commented before about this Deadie… The Ruskies offered to sell them fuel and then reprocess it for them… nope. Didnt want to. In addition certain people on that no fly list that Revere speaks of have dropped from sight in and around Iran. There are international detain warrants rather than arrest warrants for them. Many are former Russian scientists. Their initial yellowcake was crap and they knew it, but now they are finally getting their act together and the only way to do that is to make a lot of stuff from a lot of centrifuges. UF6 has turned up missing in China and hmmm…… wonder where it went. El Baradei has changed his opinion in the last few months and now agrees….they are building a bomb.

Now what would you say if London, Paris, or Haifa went in a brilliant flash? I am sorry, but I was wrong? Thing is that the regional big dog is about to get into a fight with the biggest dog on the planet. Bad stupid move and the only way for that regional dog to win is to pull something really keen and go for the sucker punch. Its a simplification I know. But if they get one and I were them I would launch it into the straits against a carrier battle group. We might not attack because the only thing we could do is launch an attack against the sites. Its Scud missile againts a carrier group. Tip the balance of power by knocking off one of those carrier groups and you might get to see WWIV in a hot and fast fury. Tactically and strategically it would make all the sense in the world. The radiation would be minimal because there is nothing to turn radioactive other than water. Its too deep where we swim to hit the bottom and the radiation would be nothing more than rad-rain and only last for a day or two as it rained itself out.

Yep Deadie, I think you need to keep up with current events and quit sideing with the guys that would do us harm. We havent attacked them but its going to get down to one point. The Iranians will NOT be allowed to have nuclear weapons or reactors capable of producing the materials for fusion weapons either.