We are children of the Cold War, and we learned nothing

I was living (as a foreign student attending CMU) in the US on 9/11 (and when Iraq was invaded in 2003, etc, etc.). Since then I have seen the slow trainwreck partially inside partially outside (I returned to Canada in Dec. 2003). Many times I have thought of what Americans and indeed everyone should do, and I come to no answers other than large scale civil disobedience and demonstrations, even larger than the antiwar protests already done. But I do not know how to organize such, etc. History tells us that the Vietnam war was not opposed by large segments of the elite of the population until the draft started being severe. I hope that this is not what it will take, but I don't know ...

What appalls me further is how this madness is further wrecking the US from within, too - the country is literally in debt collectively - this, the most affluent country the world has ever seen. When the US implodes (and I have suggested for a while that the insane division of power and wealth could not be sustained), I fear it will take a large portion of the rest of us with it. I am concerned for the welfare of all here. So, I end with an appeal to our neighbours to the south - please, please, do something.

C'mon, PZ, a little skepticism, please. If Seymour Hersh, the Oliver Stone of Journalism, says the sun rose this morning, it's a wise move to glance out an east-facing window to check. He has a 20 year record of getting things ludicrously wrong. I'm sure this latest Hersh effusion is the usual tissue of paranoid fantasy wrapped around a kernel of truth.

No doubt we have - I'm sure we have - contingency plans for military action against Iranian nukes. Bush would be irresponsible not to have. But the US is already militarily over taxed, there are viable alternative options still available, and there is no support at home or abroad for a military strike right now. Let's not try to out-insane the fundies.

I don't get the Cold War analogy. A Radical Islamist with a Nuke will most likely not engage in Cold War tactics. They do not think rationally.

How does an anti-War protest save the world? The argument that Arab nations should have nukes is the same argument as having crocodiles in your swimming pool.

I just don't get the far Left. You people are just as out to lunch about Islam as the Christian Right is out to lunch about science and evolution.

Mr. Harbison,

Could you just remind me of the times Seymour Hersh has been ludicrously wrong? I haven't followed his career all that carefully, and consequently I seem to remember only the times he's been right. (BTW, I'm not being sarcastic. I would really like to hear you recite chapter and verse on this.)

Ethan

I don't get the Cold War analogy. A Radical Islamist with a Nuke will most likely not engage in Cold War tactics. They do not think rationally.

Those "radical Islamist" mullahs in Iran (the ones with the real power not the nutso president) are fat cats who have been engorging themselves at the trough of power for the past quarter century. While their nuclear ambitions are real--the bomb is the ultimate political status symbol these days--I very much doubt they want to throw away their luxurious lifestyle by using it first and starting a war that can only lead to their annihilation.

I just don't get the far Left. You people are just as out to lunch about Islam as the Christian Right is out to lunch about science and evolution.

The Atheist Jew helpfully reminds us that Islam is just bad stuff. Thanks, AJ. But that's not a helpful approach. Like any faith-based system of belief, Islam is a superstition that causes some people to live in harmony with their neighbors and others to turn into murdering fanatics. The latter segment of Islam is certainly more newsworthy these days, but speaking in broad generalities discredits the vital effort of defending ourselves against terrorism by recasting it as a war against Islam. (Look again at what you said, AJ: "out to lunch about Islam", not "out to lunch about Islamic extremists". Were you just careless, or did you intend to indict all Muslims?)

On top of that we have the Bush administration, the most astonishingly dishonest and incompetent bunch of world wreckers in memory. They've screwed up everything they've touched with their clumsiness, even including the righteous attack on Osama bin Laden and his Taliban allies. There seems to be nothing bad in the world that Bush and company can't make worse. We actually have a president capable of thinking that carpet-bombing Iran with nukes might work out, in balance, in our favor. It's not like being an international pariah could hurt the U.S., now could it?

It's stories like these that make non-US researchers never ever want to work in the USA.

Then there are unhelpful comments like those of the Atheist Jew about crazy fundamentalists that are nothing more than poor stereotypes which harks back to days when communists ate babies.

Totally agree with the first poster, watching this from outside the USA is like watching a slow train wreck happen and there is nothing we can do about it.

The problem that gives me the most trouble is the one that we are seeing in Iraq now; we needn't go back as far as the Cold War. Despite all of the evils of the Saddam Hussein regime (me he rot in peace), the collapse of his regime has led to anomie, religious group fighting against religious group, Kurds left out in the cold again. Like Tito, Hussein was sitting on a powder keg and it was his weight which kept it from exploding.

When the U.S. "takes out" a regime, we have no idea what is going to fill the vacuum left behind and yet another country would get mired in a civil war. With no end in site, and Israel would be in even more danger. The regime in power in the U.S. had no idea what would happen in Iraq with the toppling of the Baathists, they have no thought regarding what will happen if the current onerous regime in Iran is toppled.

Seymour Hersh is not the Oliver Stone of journalism, unless you don't believe in Abu Ghraib and My Lai, two huge stories that he broke. I suppose it's a matter of opinion but his slant on the Bush Administration strikes me as pretty much on target, and I don't see any contradictory evidence that its future plans don't sound a lot like its past failures. He's no fool.

We're frogs in slowly boiling water. It shocked me that when I read Hersh's New Yorker article (to appear next week) that, wearily, for a few moments, I actually accepted the possibility that the Bush Admin might use nukes. Fortunately rational realization that indeed they might, and what might follow, made me outraged.

PZ calls them madmen. They are.

It's the end of the world as we know it.

And we feel fine.

Sometimes I think REM really knew what they were talking about.

Gerard Harbison, if you've got some cites where Hersch screwed up, please list them. From what I've seen, Hersch is arguably the best investigative reporter in the country, and The New Yorker is notorious for having the most hard-assed fact-checkers in the business.

Moreover, the Bush administration is apparently gearing up US nuclear capabilities, and I can only think of two reasons for that: (a) Some deep-pocket Republican donor wants the pork; and (b) they plan to use them.

Plus, you can't exactly argue anymore that this administration could never be that reckless.

So yeah, I'm inclined to believe it.

For far too long, "peaceful protest" in American has meant objecting in ways that the authorities find unobjectionable. That lead straight to Free Speech Zones and protestors being held behind wire fences miles from the President.

Non-violence is good, but people are going to have to be a little more proactive in ensuring that their message is heard. Tens of thousands of protestors descending on a Presidential public appearance and refusing to be constrained within a FSZ is probably what it will take. People will end up being shot, of course.

Regarding Free Speech Zones: Back in the bad old waning days of the cold war (mid 1980s), our lab hosted a Soviet botanist for a few weeks. The two of us were touring the campus of the University of Georgia, and we neared Memorial Hall. He was drawn to a construction in the plaza - a wooden platform with the plaque "Free Speech Platform". He smiled, and I knew we were in trouble.

It is unfortunate, but I can see here that you Far Lefties are completely out to lunch. I get the same feeling reading some of your comments as I do when I watch a Fundy state evolution is crap.
You dudes just aren't very rational. You offer no solutions but whine like babies about the people protecting your way of life.
Sad, very sad.
If you can't see that Islam (yes I said Islam) needs to be reformed so that humanity has a chance to survive then you are out of touch with reality. Open your eyes, you are supposed to be smarter than Fundies.

TAJ:

The argument that Arab nations should have nukes is the same argument as having crocodiles in your swimming pool.

Here I thought we were talking about Iran. Iran is 3% Arab.

Atheist Jew, I don't see anyone in this thread arguing that Islamic fundamentalists are an OK bunch of guys. Nor do I see anyone expressing glee over Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons. Further I do not see anyone advocating that the U.S. not take some action on this possibility. What I do see is a whole bunch of people afraid that the Bush administration may be so stupid as to actually use nuclear weapons and thus ensure that almost the entirety of the middle-east hates the U.S., not to mention the minor fact of likely thousands of more deaths this would bring about. How is bombing Iran reforming Islam?

The Atheist Jew won't address anything except in generalities, so he or she won't accept any replies that guess specifically at his or her motivations. He or she would rather sneer at the very legitimate concerns of others.

Nonetheless we can infer that he or she thinks it's perfectly ok to open Pandora's box and unleash nukes, without regard to what it says to North Korea, India, Pakistan, or any host of nuclear-armed nations.

The Atheist Jew would prefer that to negotiation.

One can want to islam reformed without wanting to see islamic nations obliterated.

I'm going to check the links provided now and see what the reporters are actually saying. If possible I also want to check rumours I heard of Iran having agreed to inspections of their nuclear facilities. I certainly hope they have and intend to proceed acceptably... but I fear for the future.

You dudes just aren't very rational. You offer no solutions but whine like babies about the people protecting your way of life.

We use nukes in a preemptive strike and you can kiss our way of life goodbye. It's the act of a moral monster or a monstrously ignorant fool; that's what PZ means by having learned not a goddamn thing from thirty years of Cold War terror.

Hey, Atheist Jew, do you have any evidence that anyone posting here is actually, you know, "far left"?

Just another lame attempt to hijack the discourse and re-frame the debate, by claiming that centrist and slightly left of centre views are "extreme", while extreme right-wing views are "mainstream".

I'm not playing that game.

*to see islam reformed

Previewed and everything, consarnit.

Harbison, name the times Hersh has been wrong. Seems he's been corrrect far more times then he's been off base. He's no Oliver Stone of Journalism and your saying so is a pitifully weak form of arguement.

And what does being militarily overtaxed mean? It means we don't have the ground troops. It's not going to take a signficant part of our military to carry out a bombing based campaign.

If Bush want's to deal with Iran before he's out of office, the only way he'll be able to do that is with the options Hersh reports.

We should be alarmed.

Athiest Jew, since when is nuking a country a means of reforming it? Please don't tell me their just targeting the bunkers with nukes when mass civilian deaths are inevitable.

Furthermore, Scott Ritter has reported that Iran is not anywhere near the ability to produce a bomb. They have only enough uranium hexafloride for testing the enrichment process, and the amount they need for producing bombs could not be provided by their own reactors. There domestic sourse is contaminated with an element that would make the centrifuges inoperable. An embargo would work in this case, as it was working in the case of Iraq.

And before you attack Ritter, he was dead on correct about Iraq.

You'd be willing to risk regional war, with its impact on the region's civilians, and to the global ecomony, because of a threat that is at least a decade away and could be dealt with by traditional diplomatic means? If so, that's really sad.

Atheist Jew is an example of the bad, old kind of "conservatism". The kind where warrior cults are glorified, ancient instincts about creating lebensraum for one's own people by slaughtering others are resurrected, and social allegiances (of the ethnocentristic, culturocentristic, nationalistic, and religious sorts) determine what actions should be taken.

The more conflict there is, the more people hate and attack the alliegiances he's identified himself with, the happier he is -- because ultimately that creates a cultural pressure that reinforces those alliegiances. To have an in-group, there must be an out-group, and the greater the mental gap between the two is the more stable and resistant to change those groups become.

They do not think rationally.

This is wrong. They think rationally, they just base their logic on different premises. Given what their goals are, their actions make complete sense.

This goes for Bush, too.

Actually, the Bush-types DID learn from the cold war. They learned that they can use fear to get power, and that defense contracts are lucrative. That's the problem.

Caledonian:
"To have an in-group, there must be an out-group, and the greater the mental gap between the two is the more stable and resistant to change those groups become."

Well said.

"Everyone has read Seymour Hersh's exposé of our government's plan for Iran by now, I'm sure,..."

And this includes the Iranians. I reckon a lot of diplomats are very happy that this has been published: the Iranians won't want to be nuked, so it helps if they think that the US is ruled by a bunch of nutters who are seriously considering doing this.

Bob

Most of my brain tells me that this can't possibly be our planned course of action. Just more sabre rattling along the lines of what we were saying about Syria a couple of years ago.

But then, most of my brain told me that it was impossible for Al Gore to actually lose to George Freakin' Bush.

I don't know what's impossible anymore.

Perhaps we can arrange a screening of Dr Strangelove for our Congresspeople ...

And make them all read John Hersey's Hiroshima. It's a short book; even Republicans can read it.

Of course nobody, especially the neauseating bigot Atheist Jew, mentions that only one country in the middle-east has nuclear weapons and the delivery system to send them anywhere in its neighborhood. Israeli nukes , people! They exist whether or not lying scumbag cocksuckers like Atheist Jew and Condi Rice maintain a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on them.

Gee, and I wonder why Iran wants nukes?

If you can't see that Islam (yes I said Islam) needs to be reformed so that humanity has a chance to survive then you are out of touch with reality. Open your eyes, you are supposed to be smarter than Fundies.

I agree with Atheist Jew, which is why I immediately tackle any woman wearing a headscarf whether it's at my place of employment, at the mall, or at the farmer's market, drag her by the neck to the nearest security officer, and demand that they immediately arrest her as a terrorist.

It's the fault of Islam that I keep being fired from jobs, banned from malls, and arrested for assault. Don't you people know that ISLAM IS DANGEROUS?!?!?!

On a slightly more serious note, anyone want to take bets on how long it will be before Atheist Jew goes all Barauch Goldstein on someone here in the U.S.?

More interesting reading material on this subject:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20…

Iran cannot have nukes. Period.

Wow, I'm laughing at all the great minds here. You people are pathetic.
Where did I say Iran should be nuked?

And Pastor Maker, you are the most pathetic wimp coward I've seen on these boards in a long time.

You people are like Religious Fundies, who wouldn't believe evolution if they saw a fish give birth to a frog.
9/11 bombings, London bombings mean nothing to you. If there were another 50 terrorist attacks in the West you pansies would be holding hands singing Kumbaya.

Can anyone here think about what is going to happen if Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc get nukes. Can you picture the future, or do you "scientist" just observe the past.

What a bunch of dummies.

So... believing that the use of force is not necessarily the best way to solve problems, especially when such force would possibly result in the deaths of thousands of innocents makes us pansies? Well, just call me 'Petunia' then Mr. Hawk.

I don't know about Islam, Iran, nukes, Israel, Christian fundamentalists, attacks, terrorism, freedom and all that, but some people still believe all is done to clear the route for the gas pipes and that, as always, religion is used for politics.

Aetheist Jew,

If I saw a fish give birth to a frog, YES, I would certainly question the theory of evolution as we know it.

As for the terrorists hiding under our beds and slaughtering untold numbers of innocents, have you recently checked the body count in Iraq attributable to U.S. military action? Not to mention the deaths caused by the instability we've unleashed.

What would it actually take to make you feel safe?

If I were a Muslim, I would be completely against preventing the Arab countries and Iran from getting nukes. It would be my dream.
But the thing is that I have no intention of watching the world turn into Muslims.
Pastor Maker, can I call you Achmed from now on, because if you aren't a Muslim Arab you should be. OBL would love you, especially when you give him his morning teabagging session.

Seeing a fish give birth to a frog is one of the things that would indeed cause me to reject evolution as a viable theory.

FWIW, I think Islam is one of the more pernicious and dangerous religions in the world. What puzzles me is that Atheist Jew seems to think falling in line behind Bush does anything about that. Consider, Afghanistan is [i]still[/i] an extremist Islamic state. It [i]still[/i] imprisons dissidents for blasphemy. It [i]still[/i] suppresses women's rights. It [i]still[/i] threatens and punishes apostates.

If the US had a plan to spread liberal values, that would be one thing. If the plan is simply to stand behind our own fundamentalist president as he traipses through the mideast like a bull in a china shop, forgive me some skepticism that that in fact will improve the future.

Hey Brian, how many terrorist attacks in the USA since 9/11?
As soon at the US invaded Iraq, Libya stopped their nuke program.

You can be a Dhimmi. You obviously can't think ahead.

Russell, I'm hardly a Bushbot. 9/11 changed everything though.
Rome wasn't built in a day. I don't expect reform to happen overnite.
As for my evolution joke. It was a joke, based on what Fundies say evolution is.

But the thing is that I have no intention of watching the world turn into Muslims.

Funny, I missed the part where mass conversions have been taking place. What country is that happening in again?

Just out of curiousity, is Islam a "disease" that's taking over? Do we need to "eradicate" the "disease" to protect ourselves?

Is your rhetoric starting to sound familiar, or do you really not see the parallel of demanding that a specific ethnic/religious group be completely eliminated for the "safety" of society?

Atheist Jew,

What's your point? How many terrorist attacks were there in the U.S. in the five years BEFORE 9/11?

Hey Brian, how many terrorist attacks in the USA since 9/11?

How many were there between the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the second, more successful attack in 2001? Or are you one of those nutjobs who thinks Timothy McVeigh was innocent?

As soon at the US invaded Iraq, Libya stopped their nuke program.

Oh, sweetie. You really believe that? Talk about naive ....

If Iran isn't prevented from getting nukes, and they are working to get them, rest assured that they will use them. And if they use them, they themselves will go up in flames. Like this.

What in the world IS an atheist jew, anyway? And do you lack understanding of Islam? Have you ever even READ the Koran? There's absolutely nothing wrong with Islam, and they were once the leading scientific minds on the planet - hardly the "backwards" or "dangerous" religion you seem to believe it is.

And how can you "hate Democrats" when you don't even know most of them, Mr Harbison?

You people need to go look in a mirror to see where the true dangers of the world lie. In arrogance and ignorance of others.

Mine, you aren't too bright. Don't address me. Your logic is completely whacked, and you have no idea about reality.

Brian, just live your life out, but hopefully you will remain politically impotent.

TAJ
You say that we are irrational for "whining" about the people who protect our way of life, but I think that you are the one who is completely irrational, if you think that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran is going to protect our way of life. As many have pointed out here that will only create more antagonism against this country.

In addiction, you say that we should "reform" Islam (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean), yet you seem to be advocating that reform by wiping them out. That's rational!! But since you took that stance, let's keep going along those lines and say that we also need to wipe out (sorry "reform") all fundamentalists. Let's see that would include a large part of the US, Isreal, etc. You can't have it just one way and still call yourself rational.

Donna, if you don't know what an Atheist Jew is, I suggest it is you that needs to be educated.
Go to my blog, and read the last post. And go to the video links I provide.
You need serious education.
You people are sadly in denial.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you all seem to believe that if somebody is against the US wars is anti-war in general even when they may accept a plausible explanation for a defensive war and if someone is christian american then should accept everything Bush says and those who disagree on some things with americans are anti-americans although they may agree on a billion other cultural and political things with that people and that if you are a scientist and an atheist then you are anti Bush by definition and not because Bush lacks diplomatic tact as far as his allies are concerned and that if you don't accept bombings that seem irrational to many HQ of other western countries for various strategic reasons you are supporter of the muslims=terrorists and that you pretend you don't see that some people don't feel safe in their christian democratic countries any more because they know that there is a military force out there who can strike at will for no apparent (to them ) reason and that force is the US, not the middle easterners.

What in the world IS an atheist jew, anyway? And do you lack understanding of Islam? Have you ever even READ the Koran? There's absolutely nothing wrong with Islam, and they were once the leading scientific minds on the planet - hardly the "backwards" or "dangerous" religion you seem to believe it is.

And how can you "hate Democrats" when you don't even know most of them, Mr Harbison?

You people need to go look in a mirror to see where the true dangers of the world lie. In arrogance and ignorance of others.

Well, gee, so you're jewish by birth - good for you. I'm a German/Irish/English/French/whatever else is in there mutt, myself. I certainly don't define myself by it. And yeah, I was right about the arrogance, huh?

This is a huge dilemma. It's foolish to believe that Iran is interested in anything but getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.

I am a relative peacenik and am absolutely torn on this issue. Neither of these outcomes is acceptable: 1) Iran getting an A-bomb; and 2) a military strike to remove Iran's nuclear capability. However, there are no other outcomes possible.

Negotiations will not work because negotiating with fundamentalists is like negotiating with a street-corner prophet: rationality has to be there in the first place to make negotiations work. This could be applied to the Bush regime as well. I even severely doubt that offering a non-aggression pact would help, given that Iran's ruling class seems to view nuclear power (and certainly the weapons that will come with it) as a measure of sovereignity and especially power, making them part of a world elite in terms of military abilities. Thus, if we do nothing but negotiate, Iran will certainly get a nuclear weapon because it's been their goal from the start.

We could wait 20 years for real democracy to develop in Iran, given the current young age of the population and their home-grown desire for freedom. This is something the west could strongly encourage and was happening before Bush's infamous axis-of-evil speech. However, it will only take a few years to develop a functioning nuclear weapon and is it safe to let the mullahs have a device which could make all their apocalyptic dreams come true? It's scary enough having a religious zealot like Bush with his finger on the button, let alone these religious fanatics.

The second outcome is a military strike. This will only reinforce the rule of the Islamic ruling class and certainly set back any democratic reforms. An Iraq-style regime change is out of the question, given the rugged terrain, making a mechanized campaign extremely difficult. Furthermore, a military strike would only encourage Iran and other nations to develop such a weapon and alienate the west from the Muslim world further.

I'll digress a bit here and say that it doesn't surprise me that the Bush administration would use a nuclear weapon and break a critical taboo, given their disdain for all international accords and norms.

I'm not a black and white person by nature and realize that most political issues come in shades of grey. But, again, I can only see two outcomes to this: a nuclear Iran or military strikes. Frankly, it looks like the whole world is about to eat a shit sandwich regardless of what happens in Iran. All we can do is to decide whether we want crust on the bread or not.

Sorry for the poor grammar and syntax of the comment above, but I don't like labels and I got carried away, it seems...

Donna, can you please name some of those leading Muslim scientific minds? As for "there's absolutely nothing wrong with Islam", I suggest you visit this site.

Also, as please explain this:

"Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."
Qur'an, Sura 9:5

No, reform doesn't happen over night. The question is: how do we begin it? My point with Afghanistan is precisely that Bush is not doing anything to spread liberal values. That likely is because he can't. That would undermine his own political base of right-wing fundamentalists.

Not living in Iran, I can only guess why the Iranians elected a fundamentalist wackjob as president. Still, I have to wonder if there weren't some connection to the US electing a fundamentalist wackjob as its president, one who proceeded to conquer Iran's long-time rival. If 9/11 changed the world, so did the US conquest of Iraq. And if the US's reelection of Bush was in part a reaction to Sunni fundamentalist striking New York on 9/11, might not Iran's election of Ahmadinejad in part be a reaction to Bush?

Repercussions are not simple, and are far different from the rosy scenario painted by this administration. How do you propose we begin to undermine the credibility and power of fundamentalist Islam? My belief is we have to include our own home-grown variety of fundamentalism as part of the problem, if we are credibly to oppose a different variety abroad. As long as the Islamic world sees the US fighting a crusade, that only strengthens its own religious right.

Iranians elected a religious whackjob because that's all they had to choose from: the Mullahs get have to approve any candidate who is running for president.

TAJ: you are so brave. You boldly confront the hateful, eliminationist rhetoric of racical Islam with... your own hateful, eliminationist rhetoric.

Now the question: should the U.S. preemptively use nuclear weapons against a nation that has not attacked it? Since this is the core question in this discussion, answer, or kindly STFU.

If there were another 50 terrorist attacks in the West you pansies would be holding hands singing Kumbaya.

Gosh, AJ, you must be really, really tough, typing something like that!

Tell us, when are you enlisting?

You offer no solutions . . .

And your solution consists of:

How much you hate the Left.

Yup, Left-baiting, that's the ticket. I'm so glad people who think like you are driving our foreign policy. That liberal-bashing campaign will have the whole of Islam quaking in its mukluks.

Well done!

cd318, nukes are not necessary, but I definitely believe that a preemptive strike is a must.

What is your solution? Let them build a bomb first, and then negotiate? Good thing you have no clout.

I hate Islam, I admit it. Look how they treat their women, look what comes out of especially Arab states as far as technology and science goes. N0THING. They are a culture of hate and oppression, and they want the world to be them.

People who support Islam either know little about it, or they are Islamic.

This isn't a human rights issue you pansy Liberals.

The world would be a better place without those who kiss Islams butt. I am really starting to hate the Far Left.

Molly the Left offers no solutions. The only solution I see is that Islam has to be forced into the 21st Century. Since, the war in Iraq started the mindset of many Arabs have too. In a recent survey, I noticed that their values still are far apart from the Wests, but closing in bit by bit.

What is your solution? Negotiation doesn't work. Doing nothing won't work either.

Molly, can I call you Abdullah instead for now on.

Why are you people responding to the Athiest Jew? Has it not occurred to you that what a disturbed clownish troll he is? For goodness sake do not let this buffoon start hijacking our threads. Please. Ignore trolls.

It'll be interesting, if he does this it'll be before the next election. I don't see how the republicans can hold both houses again, so to get full approval he'll need a republican crowd so..

we'll see.

Bob O'H:
I reckon a lot of diplomats are very happy that [Hersh] has been published

Perhaps. It helps that Hersh doesn't speak for the gov't.
Or not happy - the alternate case for emphasizing back-channel private threats rather than highly publicized threats (which are harder to back down from) is made by journalist James Fallows' short article in the new Atlantic Monthly:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran
...Perhaps the American and Israeli hard-liners know all [of Iran's growing strengths], and are merely bluffing. If so, they have made an elementary strategic error. The target of their bluff is the Iranian government, and the most effective warnings would be discreet and back-channel. Iranian intelligence should be picking up secret signals that the United States is planning an attack. By giving public warnings, the United States and Israel "create 'excess demand' for military action," as our war-game leader Sam Gardiner recently put it, and constrain their own negotiating choices.

James Fallows is pretty credible, and his article from Fall '02 "Iraq: the FIfty-first State" was insightful. About two years ago the Atlantic including Fallows sponsored "war games" - not their usual business! - to explore possible US/Iranian moves and reactions. This month's article updates that. Not encouraging for any pre-emptive strike scenario.

We use nukes in a preemptive strike and you can kiss our way of life goodbye.

See.. This is "precisely" the kind of insane bullshit that some posters here are talking about. The only people even suggesting using nukes to destroy the Iran nuke program are a) people that think the whole region should be nuked anyway and b) some people on the left that can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to suggest some other solution. The people talking seriously about it mean dropping conventional weapons on enrichment plants, in order to cripple their ability to make the stuff. I am not sure this is particularly unreasonablebeing fat cats, never stopped anyone else in the past from doing bone headedly stupid BS, in the deluded assumption that it would make them heroes and gain them even more power. Its certainly not likely to stop people whose official political position is, "Its all those damn Jews!"

If there is a better solution, lets hear it. Otherwise we need to see the bigger picture, which is that even if "they" don't use nukes, is a near certainty that they "will" sell them to someone else to use. Then what the #$#$#$ do you do?

Boy. Don't you just want to sign up to whatever newsletter this character is reading? I mean, such reasoned arguments, such insightful commentary, such a clear grasp on geopolitics, such a cunning debator. I know I'm convinced. Glad to know there's athiest jews out in the world who are protecting us pansy liberals from the overwhelming Islamofacist CommieNazi Horde that's poised to totally overrun our society, pervert our morals, quash our freedom and stare luridly at our women. Why, just think how easily a culture that gave the world such things as all-you-can-eat barbecue, "American Idol" and Jenna Jamerson would just roll over for a bunch of poorly funded, badly trained, haphazardly led raving religious dingbats.

I, for one, am inspired and heartened. Keep up the good work, Athiest Jew. Shine on, you crazy diamond, you.

This is an idle thought, but does it occur to anyone else that the cold war was actually successful and (I'm not confident in that assertion) now we've completely reversed our cold war tit-for-tat strategy?

Note, that should be "far left". You know the types. The ones that run insane sites like Democratic Underground.

The real question is whether we are fighting a war akin to Vietnam or WWII. This conflict is not a MAD standoff between superpowers.

If this is a Vietnam type conflict, US interests globally are not really affected. Despite the "Domino Effect," Vietnam's fall had little impact on America (except for hyperinflation in the late 1970s). Vietnam never posed a threat, nuclear or otherwise, to America. Therefore, I reject the Vietnam comparison.

Quite to the contrary, we are fighting an enemy no less destructive and hell bent on global conquest than the Nazis.

Just read the English language versions of the Arab state controlled press or the MEMRI translations of what they don't want us to see. You will quickly realize that there is a profound Islamic hatred for the West, America and our ideals. We are decadent, immoral, the Great Satan and so on. Weekly a KFC is burned as a symbolic blow to America.

If a nuke falls into Iran's hands, yes there is a real threat to the "Little Satan" Israel. But remember, we are the Great Satan, so the threat to us is as real, if not greater.

We are in a Crusade. But in this Crusade Islam is the invader. Bush was just the unfortunate sod in the White House when Islam struck it first major blow to our way of life.

The only people even suggesting using nukes to destroy the Iran nuke program are a) people that think the whole region should be nuked anyway and b) some people on the left that can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to suggest some other solution.

Um... did you read either of the articles?

Several summers ago, an International ANSWER commune in NYC had two posters displayed in their windows.

One read to the effect "Peace Now" and the other advocated a Palestinian "victory by any means".

Maybe some Loony Left Moonbat can reconcile these statements. I can't (unless of course, the Left is now advocating genocide of the Jews).

Several summers ago, an International ANSWER commune in NYC had two posters displayed in their windows.

One read to the effect "Peace Now" and the other advocated a Palestinian "victory by any means".

Maybe some Loony Left Moonbat can reconcile these statements. I can't (unless of course, the Left is now advocating genocide of the Jews).

just roll over for a bunch of poorly funded, badly trained, haphazardly led raving religious dingbats.

True. The ones that the US rolled over (Fundies and neo-cons) for are well funded.

Brent, how am I a troll. I have a website, my picture is in it. My email is easily accessible and if any of you moonbats want to IM me you can reach me at theatheistjew on Yahoo IM.
My IM is turned off a lot though, but I get to it at least once a day.

So Brent, am I still a troll or are you just a pathetic leftwing baby?

happy ruthy, I hope you are aware that MEMRI is run by former(?) member of the Israeli military intelligence. They pick only the stories that they want you to see, i.e. those that show the Arabs in the worst possible light. It's like having a news summary from USA containing only Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell.

The Arabs (or Persians) are no big threat. Look at their economies! They just don't have the resources to build modern militaries, as clearly showed against Iraq in two wars. In the Kuwait war I think USA had so deadly weapons they killed more of their soldiers themselves than Iraq managed to. Iran may be a tough nut to invade, because defending is a lot easier than attacking across the globe, but they have no possibility, nor have they shown any interest in, any miitary conquest.

I don't know if you are just decieved or one of the deceivevers, but the trick of pretending that the other side is a big threat has always been a viable ploy to gain support for a war. Reagan even managed to invade *Grenada* pretending it was a threat to national security!

Atheist Jew get 3/10 on a troll score. Invectives are nice, but it helps if you add a few arguments now and then that at least seem plausible on first look.

Why should anyone here be answering for ANSWER? Let me offer a few clues to "happy ruth." First, the Leftist fringe like ANSWER is tiny, and has almost no impact on US politics. The larger anti-war movement, which itself is a minor player in national politics, has an internal debate on how to distance themselves from ANSWER.

Second, this is a blog that attracts mostly those with some interest in science. The intersection between that and groups like ANSWER is happenstance. And slim.

Looks like PZ's got an infestation of the Bush Bedwetters. Alright, fess up. Who stole their binkies?

Hey Atheist Jew,

I was stuck in traffic on the BQE in full view of the Twin Towers on the morning of February 23 1993, that was about nine years or so between attempts. Maybe I'm just paranoid but I don't feel any safer with the current state of affairs. Even though I have dutifully removed my shoes on a number of occasions at local airports, BTW I wasn't asked to remove them when flying to the US from a foreign coutry which shall remain unnamed. I don't want to start an international fiasco. And homeland security did a bang up job protecting New Orleans from hurricane Katrina which was predicted days in advance. Oh that's right democracy in Iraq is really doing well...Sorry man I'm just a wee bit sceptical about our current administration's stellar track record of carefully pondering what the best course of action should be. I would like my young Jewish son to get a chance to grow up to be an atheist as well. I don't beleive in turning the other cheek but I sure as hell want to have a very well thought out plan of action before I start blowing up a lot of innocent people just because the his Royal Highness assures me they are evil! Heck I've actually worked with some Iranians who could almost fool me into believing that they are human like us. As for Islam, Christianity and Judaism I wouyld love to see the end of all three but I'm not sure another preemtive strike is the best way to get there. Sabre rattling may have its place but I sure wouldn't want the bluff called by one lunatic and responded to by another.

I thought this was a science blog. It seems like a gathering place for Muslim minds. I guess Muslims feel safe with Lefties. Sorry to intrude here. I'm done. This board reminds me of a bunch of Christian Fundies stating that evolution is just a theory.

I wonder if this site is on the Terrorism List.

I thought this was a science blog. It seems like a gathering place for Jewish minds. I guess Jews feel safe with Bolsheviks.

FYI - Gerard Harbison aka the "Right Wing Professor" (or as he self-refers in abbreviation "RWP") has yet to provide any evidence, and example, or even a simple argument for his assertion that Seymour Hersh "has a 20 year record of getting things ludicrously wrong."

I'm with Ethan. I haven't followed Hersh's career in any detail and couldn't care less whether he's been ludicrously wrong or ludicrously correct. But, I would still like to know how "ludicrously wrong" he's been over the past 20 years just because the claim's been made. Isn't it odd how that works - someone asserts something and then someone else wants to know the basis for the assertion. That damn critical thinking thing getting in the way again.

C'mon RWP, I'm just employing "a little skepticism" as you put it. Or does that "little skepticism" only apply when it's leveled against someone with whom you may disagree? Or do you expect all of us to simply believe what you say on faith?

Oh well, here's a prediction based on past experience with rubes like RWP. He operates like those drive-by emailers that some of us are all too familiar with and probably won't return to this thread and make good on his claim as a result. He gets off on dropping such baseless assertions and running away to hide in the safety of his domain.

You know, it's kinda like door-bell ditching when you were a kid. You never really witnessed the reaction of the person opening the door but the thrill of imagining their perplexed and perhaps angry face as you were curled up behind a bush with your buddies a block away was priceless. And oh how much fun that was - we would laugh and laugh and talk about it for days.

C'mon RWP, come back and ring the door bell again but this time don't run away, have the courage to stay and face those in residence. Or perhaps you enjoy crouching behind your chemistry set softly chuckling to yourself, imagining what people are saying about you - peek-a-boo Gerard.

Athiest Jew states:
"They [Islam] are a culture of hate"

"I hate Islam"

"I am really starting to hate the Far Left."

Sounds like that hate culture lost one of its members...

"It seems like a gathering place for Muslim minds."

That's laughable. Who here has defended Islam? Much less fundamentalist Islam. You verge on paranoia when you think that those whose knees don't jerk the same direction as yours therefore are supporting an enemy.

It is Bush who insists that faith is good, and that Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by a fringe of radicals. We secular liberals view Islam as no better than any of the other Abrahamic religions. We view the fundamentalist strains of those religions as delusional. We view fundamentalists in political power as dangerous to liberty and western democracy. We view fundamentalists with nuclear armaments at their disposal as downright scary.

Ignoring my own advice for the moment: a troll, TAJ, is someone who enters web discussions with no intention of actually fostering debate but rather with the intention of inflaming anger and derailing discussion with irrelevant invective and pathetic non-sequitors. Definitions vary but that is one that is widely used and held. The evidence that you provided of your "non-troll" status are irrelevant to this understanding of the term. So yes, you are still a troll.

You see TAJ, your arguments are without content and devoid of any rational underpinning or sophisticated thought. You have nothing to add but your own cartoonish view of the world and irrational anger towards anyone who doesn't share your pathetically simplistic perspective of things. For instance, it has been mentioned to you several times that no one on this board is arguing that it is a good thing for Iran to have nuclear arms but that we merely disagree that preemptive nuclear warfare is a reasonable solution to this problem. Yet you have repeatedly cast this accusation about. Now either you truly believe that people are making this argument because it is essentially impossible for someone with your manichean perspective to countenance a more nuanced argument or you are simply trying to make people angry by ignoring the actual arguments they are making and calling them names.

Almost all of your "arguments" contain a sort of false dichotomy fallacy. For instance, that wonderful rejoinder where you are either a troll or I am a "pathetic leftwing baby." This is the classic technique of the internet troll.

Now I agree with Thomas. You are not a very good troll but you are a troll nonetheless. Please stop embarassing yourself and poisoning this discussion.

Brent, you have a reading comprehension problem. You are putting words in my mouth, and I have made valid arguments here. Read my posts again. This time try to do it slowly.

You are doing everything you are accusing me of doing. LMAOAY

brent: Hear, hear!

I wonder if this site is on the Terrorism List.

TAJ, in what way are you not a troll?

I'm with Brent.

Can we please not drag Pharyngula down this path?

Lets see. I've been called names even before I posted yesterday on the P and T board. The names have continued here. I have yet to see one LEFTY come up with a viable solution to Iran having nukes yet on this board. Just a bunch of Anti-War crybabies, terrorist supporters, and Muslims hiding behind anglo names.
Lets have some valid discussion. Do you sit back and watch Iran develop nukes and hope they never use them? That isn't my solution, and I've stated it. What is your solution?

Actually, Atheist Jew is pretty on point.

Just because MEMRI is run by a former Mossad Agent (typical leftist smear) doesn't change that fact that it is just a translation service.

Muslims and their Dhimwhit apologists who decry MEMRI never do so on the basis of translation inaccuracy but instead do so on the basis of "not understanding the totality of circumstances".

Sorry, fellow, but you're not up to discussing international policy, so long as you keep lobbing false epithets: "terrorist supporters," "anti-war crybabies," "Muslims hiding behind anglo names." Go play elsewhere.

Oh Sh*t!! Why is there war in the first place??? PZ, what on earth can we do? People are snarkingamongst themselves here, the president of your country is after regime change again, and in my corner of the world I just want it to STOP!!!!! I am sick of being worried. I am sick of people making decisions that have implications into the future for unknown periods of time. I am so mad at religious people who use their religion as a weapon. I am tired of people saying that they personally do not believe like the other guy- but not denouncing him as publicly as those who are nutbars disseminate THEIR ideas. I am so tired of EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!

Ayn Rand - remember her? A shallow, bombastic, silly rightwing pseudointellectual who thought being an atheist proved how much more rational she was than everyone else. Sound like anyone we know?

She did, however, say one insightful thing: "Debating with the irrational is like giving medicine to the dead."

Do you sit back and watch Iran develop nukes and hope they never use them?

Just like we sat back and watched Stalin, Mao, and the Pakistanis develop nukes and hoped they never used them. Funny how that turned out.

That isn't my solution, and I've stated it. What is your solution?

Not to cower in fear and lash out at any dark-skinned heathen who dares to look at us funny. Here, have a kleenex, those tears are just ruining your mascara.

Russell, how expectantly cowardly of you in not answering my question but deflecting my post instead. You dudes are just as predictable as Fundies when I talk to them about evolution.
I knew you wouldn't answer the question. And so far nobody has.
No wonder I'm perceived as a troll. You Lefties just cry about the Right and offer no substantial solution.
Just like Fundies poke holes in evolution but offer no science to back up ID.

Take a long hard look at yourself.

And instead of naturally insulting me and calling me a troll, lets hear your solution to Iran.

Dustbin Mohammed, you are either a Muslim or you are braindead. I'm just happy that pukes like you have no pull, nor should you.

As a bit of support for Brent.

"When you argue with a fool there are two."

but offer no science to back up ID.

Well, there is explanation but it's not scientific. If there's no God(s), then who gave people religions so they would start wars and die to counteract sex that brings overpopulation, hm?
:P

DoH:

Just like we sat back and watched Stalin, Mao, and the Pakistanis develop nukes and hoped they never used them. Funny how that turned out.

Putting aside TAJ's rhetoric for the moment, do you really think that uncontrolled nuclear proliferation in a good idea? Really?

And while I'm deigning to comment:

PZ:

On our side, we have a government supported by fundamentalist Christians who anticipate the rapture and an apocalyptic war in the Middle East, who are quite pleased with the fact that they are the sole world superpower, and think that they can now unilaterally project that power wherever they want.

While certainly not disagreeing with your concern over the influence of the religious right in this country, would you rather the U.S. not be the "sole world superpower"? Would you rather there be other superpowers to threaten us? Would you prefer to go back to the "good old days" of the cold war? Or perhaps you'd prefer it if the U.S. became a second rate power?

Just curious.

While certainly not disagreeing with your concern over the influence of the religious right in this country, would you rather the U.S. not be the "sole world superpower"?

I think the issue is not what we would rather be the case. In fact, I am sure most of us would wish, that the kind of armament and destructive capacity that defines the term superpower was wholly unnecessary. But this is obviously not realistic. I think the issue is with the attitude that we take towards this power - how "pleased" some of us are to yield it. In other words, the key issue is not status as "sole world superpower" but the fact that the religious right feels pleased with their influence over how that power should be wielded. That is, at least my interpretation of what PZ is saying here and I would certainly agree with that sentiment.

not sure why I thought I needed all those extra commas in that post.

Atheist Jew...I dare you to report me to the Department of Homeland Security or whomever else's website you jack off to these days. Go on...I mean , if I'm actually a supporter of terrorists , as you claim, then the government surely needs to know, and your refusal to report me amounts to complicity in my crimes.

No? I thought not, you quivering sack of shit.

You're a silly, silly little man. You don't even get a pass for not believing in god.

I think the issue is not what we would rather be the case. In fact, I am sure most of us would wish, that the kind of armament and destructive capacity that defines the term superpower was wholly unnecessary. But this is obviously not realistic.

You're right, it isn't realistic. The weapons exist, and people willing to use them exist. The question is how to deal with this fact, and not simply sit around bemoaning that it is a fact.

In other words, the key issue is not status as "sole world superpower" but the fact that the religious right feels pleased with their influence over how that power should be wielded. That is, at least my interpretation of what PZ is saying here and I would certainly agree with that sentiment.

Yes, but I'd like to hear PZ's response. While I'm at it I'd also like to hear his specific ideas on how to handle the problem of nuclear proliferation in Iran particularly and the world in general.

It is all well and good to denounce His Majesty's (G. W. B.) contingency plans for Iran, but what is his better idea? Scold them? Offer them tribute? What?

cd318, nukes are not necessary, but I definitely believe that a preemptive strike is a must.

That's what the Germans said about Poland, and what the Russians said about Hungary. Hope you like cuddling with those folks. They are your bedfellows.

What is your solution? Let them build a bomb first, and then negotiate? Good thing you have no clout.

About as much as you, chickenhawk.

I hate Islam, I admit it.

Then you will never see your enemy clearly, and you will lose.

Look how they treat their women,

There are a lot of Muslims in the world, and they treat "their" women in many different ways. By the way, your choice of the possessive pronoun says a great deal about how *you* view women.

look what comes out of especially Arab states as far as technology and science goes. N0THING.

Recently, yes. Go back a few hundred years, and the answer is: a hell of a lot more than was coming out of Europe. One must conclude from this evidence that the current deficit is not intrinsic to Islam per se.

They are a culture of hate and oppression,

So was the atheist Soviet Union. You gonna blame atheism for Russian and Chinese totalitarianism? That dog don't hunt.

and they want the world to be them.

Ans we want the world to be us. Your point?

People who support Islam either know little about it, or they are Islamic.

More deranged argument by category. You are quite retarded.

This isn't a human rights issue you pansy Liberals.

Why aren't you in the military, coward?

The world would be a better place without those who kiss Islams butt. I am really starting to hate the Far Left.

Hate, hate, hate. Froth, froth, froth. It's a good way to crowd out thought, analysis, logic, objectivity, argument, intelligence. But then, that's your whole modus operandi, isn't it?

Pastor Maker, you are a pathetic nothing. With impotent ideas and no pull whatsoever.

Why is a Canadian loving Bush and pushing for nuking Iran? Last I heard, Iranians were not planning a bombing of Ontario.

This is a truly frightening article by Hersh. I weep for my nation that will bear the brunt of Bush's folly long after he's walked off to his Potemkin Ranch, neither he nor any in his family having been subjected to the result of his decisions.

Anyone who feels that bombing Iran in this manner will actually make us safer is incompetently dangerous. This will set off every Shiite in Iraq against the US forces, and boost recruitment into the insurgency. It will allow Al Queda to spread even faster, and since Iran and Saudi oil families have been glutted by the recent gas spike, expect the result to be using some fraction to buy a black market bomb from the former Soviet Republics.

The defenders of torture, aggression and racism don't want to drop a few nukes. They want an Armageddon. I just wish they'd be at ground zero instead of me.

Thanks CD for proving my point. Just attack and add no solution. Just a bunch of Lefty rhetoric.

What is your solution oh brainy one?

Wait...According to Atheist Jew, one moment I'm a terrorist islamofascist threat to the West, and the next moment I'm a "pathetic nothing with impotent ideas and no pull whatsover"!

So Atheist Jew is basically wetting himself and demanding nuclear strikes, and the murder of thousands, because of the evil, diobolical threat of pathetic nothings with impotent ideas and no pull whatsover! Sounds like a pretty good definition of a typical recruit of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, those brave right-wing boys and girls who fight the war on islamocommieliberalfascists from their home-offices and basements.

And he thinks we're crazy for not wanting to see Iran bombed back to the stone age!

Everything changed on 9/11...or so some say. But what really changed on 9/11? On that day, half the nation shat in their pants and covered up the rapidly rising stench from their pants by demanding Revenge, Revenge, Revenge! Off with their heads, said the Red Queen. Nuke them all, said the Red Staters. Fear, fear, fear, hate, hate, hate, self-hate, self-hate, self-hate!

Conservatives are such great enemies for each other. Conservative Muslims, Conservative Jews and Conservative Christians are like Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia, constanctly at war, changing alliances overnight (remember - American Jews and Bosnian Moslems were best friends ten years ago).

Why is someone in Ontario, or Kansas, or Iowa so afraid of terrorists and Mew Yorkers are not? Are they gonna getchya? Which terrorists? A bunch of bearded morons once managed to get their heads out of online porn for a minute and have had damn good luck to actually have an attack succeed, because they understood their enemy - one just like them, dismissing reality, living in the make-believe land of wishful thinking. "We make reality", said someone in the White House a few years back.

And now, the bearded morons are decimated, infighting, still not recovered from the impact of the surprise success of their 9/11 attack, and mostly back to their online porn.

But the new terrorists are coming out of the woodwork. We opened up the niche for them in Iraq, and they hurried to fill the niche. We gave them a reason to exist.

Yes, the mullahs are running Iran. But, at the same time, there is a huge liberal segment of the Iranian society that is brewing underneath. Iran had made huge progress over the past couple of decades. There is real intelligentsia there. Little by little, they have already eroded the power of the mullahs. The election of their current idiot, mainly in response to the US fundamentalism by their own fearful fundemantalists, is just a temporary setback.

You know what worked? Working behind the scenes, empowering, funding and arming the opposition. It worked in Serbia (though with a 10-year unneccessary delay - democratic opposition was on the verge of deposing Milosevic in March 1991 and only needed a little push, perhaps just open approval from the West to succeed). It worked in Ukraine and Belaruss. It can work in Iran, too.

But no, you cannot have that because those opposition movements are all liberals! Freedom! Equality! Modernity! Reality, science, feminism. No, we cannot allow THEM to take over. We'd rather keep conservatives in power in Iran and such places so the rock-paper-scissors game of global politics and sabre-rattling can go on. If liberals win in Iran, the liberals here may get some ideas, too. Can't have that, can we?

What does Iran have that the US wants? What does the US have that Iran wants? If sufficient of each is there, and each is willing to give some, take some, then a war can be avoided.

The US has technology, investment dollars (do you know that Iran imports gasoline, though it is an oil exporter?), the doors to the WTO, etc. Furthermore, if the US was as willing to nuke both Israel and Palestine unless they made peace as Bush appears to be willing to nuke Iran, a rational peace that area, and a major irritant would be ended. (If it were upto me, I'd say, here is a 365 day count down - learn how to share Jerusalem, otherwise on the 366th day, it is going to be reduced to fine dust; neither Jew or Muslim nor Christian will have any of its holy places left). A determined and evenhanded US can bring about a Palestinian state and Israel and both in relative peace far more readily than, e.g., it can pacify Iraq. I can't understand how 10 million people - about one Indian metropolis, or 5 parliamentary constituencies out of 540 - can be allowed to inflame the whole world with their conflict. It is 10 million of them or 5990 million of the rest of us. You can guess whom I vote for. I also think that $300 billion would be better spent for a US security guarantee for the resulting Israeli, Palestinian config., than in doing things like uprooting Saddam.

Iran has oil and gas, is the rational route to bring Central Asian oil and gas to market. Iran can eschew terrorism, and can help bring about quiet, both in Palestine and in Iraq. It can give up its nuclear plans. It can limit its fundamentalism to home, and not try to export it. In return it gets lifting of sanctions, security guarantees, investment, trade, a leading role in the world energy economy.

It may appear that Iran is getting more than it is giving. That is true. However, the world needs as much political stability as it can get while it attacks the truly important problems of poverty, ecological degradation, a looming energy crunch and so on. Holding this up while contesting pissing rights on West Bank soil is exactly the stupid kind of thing that Homo Sapiens is prone to. Without the Israeli/Palestine irritant, half of the Global War on Terrorism will collapse into non-necessity anyway.

I've got you Lefties so figured out now. You bash Bush, bash war, but offer no solutions. You are just a bunch of whiney geeks.

I remember getting frustrated on a Fundy board, when I asked for a definition of morality (they were saying that morality is objective not subjective)

I got the same responses I'm getting here when I'm asking for solutions about the Iran situation. I mean REALISTIC SOLUTIONS. You peeps are pathetic. Sorry, you just are.

You were just offered two realistic solutions: economic and political negotiations, and bolstering the opposition behind the scenes. Your solution - use of blind force - is not realistic.

This is a huge dilemma. It's foolish to believe that Iran is interested in anything but getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.

I am a relative peacenik and am absolutely torn on this issue. Neither of these outcomes is acceptable: 1) Iran getting an A-bomb; and 2) a military strike to remove Iran's nuclear capability. However, there are no other outcomes possible.

No, what's foolish is to believe that Iran will act against its own survivavl interest.

Bush scared the world with the threat of Iraqi Nukes. That threat was determined to be unfounded. Bush invaded anyway.

Now Bush is scaring the world with the threat of Iranian Nukes. There is right now no upside for the Iranians to backdown and show the world the threat is unfounded, and plenty of upside to having a nuclear deterrent.

There were plenty of diplomatic possibilities to resolve the current crisis with Iran. Unfortunately Bush has thrown them away along with all US credibility in Iraq.

"The Atheist Jew" (whom I'm increasingly suspecting is neither) wrote upthread:

I thought this was a science blog. It seems like a gathering place for Muslim minds. I guess Muslims feel safe with Lefties. Sorry to intrude here. I'm done.

...And then proceeded to post several more times. Predictably, s/he's not only a neoconservative chickenhawk bedwetter, but a liar as well. What a shocker.

The weapons exist, and people willing to use them exist.

Well no. In the case of Iran, the weapons do not exist. A very important dictinction at this stage.

Would they willing to use them if they did exist? Probably yes n some scenario, but probably no more than say, North Korea is willing to use them. That is not to say that this is not a significant problem but to say that even this administration, even these guys, have made it clear by their actions that they believe that flexing our might is not always a reasonable solution to a threat.

The real answer is that there are no very easy solutions. We have, unfortunately, painted ourselves into a corner where negotiation and various types of international political pressure have become rather complicated and will probably be ultimately ineffectual in the case of Iran.

That being said, that process from both the U.S. and International perspective has a long way to go before we even need to consider even military solutions and certainly a much longer way to go before we should start realistically considering nuclear solutions. I think we can all imagine the numerous negative scenarios that will result from the use of nuclear power to pre-emptively pacify a nation that we theorize might be able to threaten us sometime in the future. What is worse, is that there will also be, in the general way of such things, numerous negative consequences that we cannot anticipate.

The question is how to deal with this fact, and not simply sit around bemoaning that it is a fact.

I am not sure who you are referring to here. I certainly don't think that PZ is simply bemoaning anything. For myself, I can say that the only thing I am bemoaning is that there seems to be a very real chance that my government will actually and in the very near future lash out in an act of enormous destruction.

Perhaps I don't have a ready solution. Perhaps no one has any reasonable solution and we have reached a stage where we can only rely on our our considerable destructive might to solve our problems (although I certainly doubt that). At this stage of things, I simply don't know. But what I do know is that I don't trust this administration to make that decision. I question their motives. I question their foresight and most of all, I question their judgement.

Atheist Jew,

Is it even possible that a solution not of your liking would qualify as a REALISTIC SOLUTION or is your "solution" the only REALISTIC SOLUTION?

There's been alternative approaches already suggested, as Coturnix points out, but you seem only interested in accepting your solution. Don't you think it's a little silly to keep harping about us pathetic lefties not providing REALISTIC SOLUTIONS when you're only interested in your own? It's disingenuous at best, no?

I propose TAJ should be banned, for trolling and throwing a lot of insults around without adding anything to the discussion. Furthermore his insistence on calling all opponents "muslims" is really a racist move. If he'd said half of what he's so far said here over at the General's he'd be gone.

How about not antagonizing every nation in the Middle East for a start? Remember after 9/11, when Iran offered aid and support? When it shared intel on Al Queda and the Taliban? The government was becoming more moderate in Iran, but now they are as hardline as hardline gets in response to slow surrounding of their borders by the American military.

I don't know what to do about Iran, but I know that yet another military action will further increase the debt, inflame the Middle East against the US, erode support for us in international relations, and embolden terrorist organizations. You don't need to be a doctor to know eating Drano is bad for you.

I don't really agree with banning TAJ. I mean, as has been pointed out, his trolling has been pretty second rate. Mostly just mild annoyance.

TAJ:

You say people on this board aren't offering "realistic solutions" for Iran. I think they are: the two entries above your last comment allude to the economic and political situation in Iran, which is far from hopeless. A huge percentage of young Iranians want economic and political liberalization, closer relations with the West, and the end of theocracy. If you've read anything about Iran in the last 5 years you'll know this is true. We need to engage these reformist segments of the Iranian public, and help them subvert the theocracy. Instead, our government has played into the hands of the mullahs, calling Iran a member of the "Axis of Evil", and failing to offer the kinds of economic incentives that could help strengthen the liberal faction in Iran.

People on this board aren't left-wing loonies. We simply by-and-large disagree with you about the best *policy* for achieving a stable, peaceful outcome in the Middle East. We think bombing nuclear sites in Iran (combined with our occupation of Iraq and flamboyant rhetoric) will only undermine the long-run security of the US and make conflict, including nuclear conflict, with Iran *more likely*.

Other commenters have pointed out your strong tendency to fall into false dichotomies. You are falling into a related fallacy: if you think economic and diplomatic policies have a low probability of success in Iran, that does *not* imply that force will likely succeed. It could be that there are no "practical solutions". So when your critics deride your policy as likely to backfire, you need to defend your own ground, not cast vague aspersions on their counter-proposals. (Bush supporters fall into this fallacy often, assuming, for example, that there must exist a "solution" to the Iraq insurgency. There may not be one.)

Instead of calling people names and committing logical fallacies, why not make a coherent argument for how bombing Iran will improve US security? E.g., how will we handle the likely reaction among Iraqi Shiites?

Oh good grief.

Why even waste time with the guy? It's obvious that he knows no more about evolution than any other right-wing fundie, (fish giving birth to frogs?!), and that he keeps mentioning arguing evolution with fundamentalists to try and give himself some credit here. He fails miserably after showing how little he actually understands evolution.

He seems to have the same understanding of Islam - Men, women, or children, if you have the misfortune to be born into an Islamic family, he already hates you. No matter that MOST of the islamic world is peaceful, (like most of the Christian world, not counting the all-too-vocal fundies), he's lumped them all together. What I think is funny is that I can easily view the 'Christian states' in the same light as he views the 'arab states' - Look how they treat their women! Look what comes out of their schools as far as science goes!

He's completely refused to answer most questions posed to him, (Like 'Do you have any evidence that anyone posting here is from the Far Left?', or 'Where exactly are those mass muslim conversions happening?), he calls people 'pathetic wimp cowards' for even MENTIONING Israel's nukes, or anything else that calls him out to actually document or explain his insanity. He's a troll, a bigot, and (judging by his evolution comments) and idiot as well.

What kind of brain-dead excuse is 'I'm not a troll, I have a website!'?

Ignore 'im. I will. He can't or won't *converse*, so I'm not going to play his little game. Let's get back to Science, eh?

How bout those Tiktaalik fish?

Ermine

I'd be happy if TAJ stayed here forever and ever and ever. He's so virile and manly! He gives my pansy euro-liberal libido such a boost! Punish us some more, Atheist Jew!! Tell us what BAD boys we all are!!!

If you can't see that Islam (yes I said Islam) needs to be reformed so that humanity has a chance to survive then you are out of touch with reality. Open your eyes, you are supposed to be smarter than Fundies.

Man, I think it is you who needs to lay off the cool aid. Iran does not, and has not recently, threatened the US (except by threatening to sell oil in Euros instead of dollars). A small number of militant Islamic extremists does not mean that the entire religion "needs to be reformed for humanity to survive." That is just nuts.

Beyond that, the core relevant fact of the matter is that air strikes, even nuclear strikes won't stop Iran from getting nukes. The only way to stop them is to (a)get their agreement to stop, and (b)to conquer and occupy the country. The US built it's first reactor under a football stadium. The Iranians will be able to hide their stuff where we can't find it.

All attacking them will do is delay them a bit and really piss them off, making them want to get nukes even more. And guess what? That is a prefectly sane and rational response. Iran's population was becoming noticeably more moderate and pro-American in recent years. There was a massive pro-American rally after 9/11, and one on the anniversary every year since. However, after declaring them "axis of evil" and invading 2 neighboring countries, the Iranians elected a right-wing nut case. Basically they picked a right-wing nutcase to balance our right-wing nut case.

Bush is pushing Iran into a corner. He is giving them no sensible option but to pursue nukes.

North Korea already has nukes. Do you actually believe North Korea is more rational than Iran? Nuclear proliferation is a fact. North Korea has them. Pakistan (oh so stable with no ties to radical Islamists, right?) has them. In 20 years anyone who want a nuke will have them.

The only way out of this is to make other countries in the world NOT WANT NUKES. Bush strutting around waving his penis at every Muslim in the world isn't going to do it.

BTW, if anyone is wondering about this dhimmi that's being thrown about so much, I believe it's from this short story by Dan Simmons that's got the wing-nuts so stirred up.

This whole issue has very little to do with Iran's potential nuclear threat. If the Iranians actually used nuclear weapons, they know exactly what the devastating consequences of a guaranteed counter strike would be. Hence, unless they were the target of a first strike, they wouldn't dream of using this capability. The so-called principle of mutually assured destruction is pretty sound generally speaking and in the Iranian case the assured destruction is extremely lopsided against their favor.

All of this saber rattling is simply about admittance into the nuclear club and reaping the political and economic benefits of such membership. The U.S. enjoys its monopoly in this regard and the prospect of Iran with nuclear weapons reduces that monopoly and our hegemony in the region. In other words, if Iran develops a nuclear capability, we cannot play the bully anymore and use our conventional military might as we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's not a whole lot more to it than this.

Iran with nuclear weapons only poses a threat to the U.S. power monopoly in the Middle East and nothing else.

Harbison: If Seymour Hersh, the Oliver Stone of Journalism, says the sun rose this morning, it's a wise move to glance out an east-facing window to check. He has a 20 year record of getting things ludicrously wrong.

Ethan: Could you just remind me of the times Seymour Hersh has been ludicrously wrong?

Molly, NYC: Gerard Harbison, if you've got some cites where Hersch screwed up, please list them.

petewsh61:Harbison, name the times Hersh has been wrong.

Buridan:FYI - Gerard Harbison aka the "Right Wing Professor" (or as he self-refers in abbreviation "RWP") has yet to provide any evidence, and example, or even a simple argument for his assertion that Seymour Hersh "has a 20 year record of getting things ludicrously wrong."

Mr. Harbison, are you still out there? Mr. Harbison???

(sound of crickets chirping...)

9/11 changed a lot, but the only reason it did is because of the frightened idiots who chant "9/11 changed everything!" and in their terror-stricken panic, set about changing everything for the worse.

They call it terrorism because the actual weapon is NOT the suicide bomber or the plane being flown into a building. The physical damage is relatively minor. The real damage is done by the irrational fear of people in places like Pocatella Idaho whose actual risk from terrorism is several thousand times less than their risk of being hit by the next crosstown bus.

Personally, I'm not terrorized. Concerned, yes... annoyed, yes... saddened and alerted to a problem that needs to be dealt with, yes... but terrorized? Not in the least. Terrorists pose no real threat to me, and no real threat to my friends or loved-ones.

I took a bigger risk riding Amtrak cross-country last year.

9/11 changed almost nothing. Panicked idiots chanting "9/11 changed everything!" have changed everything.

How is someone supposed to interpret the pro-glass parking lot contingent? Obviously they're a snivelling mob of bed wetters, but are they a unique occurence in history? A relic of PoMo run amok? I think so.

After fall of the Soviet Union, there existed no existential threat to liberty and the principles of the liberal democracy. It was the Hegelian end of history, after all. Even Red China loved sipping on their American sodas, and the golden arches of McDonalds and prosperity were popping up across the world.

The increasingly global liberal civilization that had won ideological supremacy over all others had no enemies; everyone, though recognizing that conservative and radical opponents of it still existed and in some places even held power, also knew that they would be consigned to the dustbin of history. Peace and prosperity were inevitable; people could just go about enjoying themselves and defining themselves within modern commodity culture. Materialistic, perhaps uninteresting, and a hell of a lot better than centuries of war, disease, and tyranny.

But war is a force that gives us meaning.

They felt spiritually bereft by not having to win some existential war for the souls of humankind; they needed to feel like they would have some grand justification for their existence and role in history, instead of having to settle for being the inheritors of a world that people greater themselves had created. So they needed an enemy. Russian authoritarianism? Perhaps, but propounded by a decrepit state that obviously has no future. The contemporary PRC? An enemy, but one born more of historical anomaly than actual ideological differences.

So they choose Islam and Islamic culture. Of course, they claim it's a culture trapped in the 13th century and totally left behind in the wake of progress. A bunch of stupid powerless goat-herders. And yet they'd have us believe that OMG IT'S GOING TO DESTROY THE WHOLE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND TAKES OUR WOMENZ!1!ELEVENTY-ONE!!!!

Ridiculous, but intelligent people believed it--many did, in fact. Despite the fact that many Muslims have been more than able to adapt to and accept liberal culture (case in point: I know of a Muslim girl from Mumbai studying EE in the USA at a large public university. Not only that, but she's more than willing to drink, party, and, dare I say, do things with a white, Pharyngula-posting liberal that even many American girls would blush at), they thought of Islam as some monolithic block that threatened everything we hold dear. This belief isn't a function of intelligence, but psychological problems lying in an inability to accept the fact that you and the things you believe in aren't particularly unique. The big questions in life have been settled already; history ain't gonna remember you, TAJ and Harbison.

Of course, it's hard for them to feel good about themselves by chattering on the internet debating a bunch of illiterate goat-herders who don't even know what the internet is, let alone a blog. So they turn to something else, something nearer--a thing that affronts their ego even more in telling them they're nuts in thinking that Qatar will invade the USA. It's the damn pointy-headed liberals. So they come into the reality-based community, drop some lines about us being stupid and weak-willed and characteristically Jewish... errr, Islamist, in thought. Voila, one becomes a hero for Western civilization. It'd be almost funny, if it weren't so sad and intertwined with tragic, real-world consequences.

So, if you want to communicate with them, you have to realize their beef isn't based on some rational reasoning; it lies in deep-set psychological problems that they haven't been able to deal with themselves. They're not well-adjusted functioning adults; though intelligent, their emotional and psychological state is somewhere between a depressed heroin addict and a 14-year old girl who just had a messy break up with her first boyfriend. Keep that in mind before replying to them.

Sorry for the longish post =)

For those who are so gungho about using nuclear weapons, I have to ask you, what about the aftermath?

Do you really think the nuclear fall out will stay within the borders of one country? Do you think the wind won't carry debris, the ground water won't be contaminated? This goes far beyond the Roman trick of "poisoning the well".

We honestly do NOT know what the long-term outcome of a sizeable nuclear drop will be. Cherynobyl (sp?) is the closest thing we have and those effects are still lingering today.

As for being weak against 'terrorist' I grew up in Ireland in the 80's. Bombings were frequent and targets civilians, BOTH SIDES were assholes and the more they strutted about and poked each other the more innocent ppl died. So forgive me if MY EXPERIENCE tells me that pre-emptive strikes is not in the best interest of anyone. Not to mention the VERY real risk of another nuclear country deciding WTF and retaliating (that is normally the way these things work, after all) What then? An all out global war? Talk about a fundy wet-dream, a rapture ready plan all set to go.

I agree with the others, diplomacy (esp since Iran does NOT have the bomb yet) with a strong emphasis on financial (greed is a powerful motivation) points is a very good first step And before any neo-cons scream about the lack of results with the UN and embargos with Iraq, let me point out that they WERE working, and the UN's actions were spot on and effective. It was the delusions of the current administration that 'screwed the pooch' on Iraq. Diplomacy was working, people were willing to talk and life could have been much different for anyone.

Not to mention, that people who are comfortable (ie. have a decent quality of life) are far less likely to be willing to risk it all for any single objective (such as religion or hate). When you have nothing left to lose it is easy to start shooting or bombing because you have nothing to look forward to should your enemy retaliate. But if you have a family, a decent job, good neighbours that you care about...well its a lot harder to risk things like that, isn't it?

"The Atheist Jew" (whom I'm increasingly suspecting is neither)
***************************
Obviously you aren't very good at figuring out the obvious cdimbecile.

Glad I caused such an uproar on this board you Liberal pansies. Hope Bush makes you stay up at night. I actually will get joy out of an attack on Iran just because it will piss you tree hugging terrorist loving moonbats off.

And Iran needs to be taught a lesson:)

I'm done here for good. I know I said it before but you are such a pathetic lot here. I've never seen a bunch on non thinking crybabies in my life. You dudes can't think one step ahead. That is an Arab trait y'know.

Spam my blog if you like, but you people are turnoffs.

Note his textbook defense mechanisms. And though he's said before that he'd leave, he keeps on coming back for his fix. He needs to have the adults pay him attention, because otherwise he's all alone in the world.

TAJ:

This is your second promise to leave, so forgive me if I don't find it the least bit credible.

Since you seem to fancy yourself an intellectual and sceintifically minded, you should look over the last dozen or so posts here. Your bullying, un-evidenced, and frankly racists posts have been utterly buried by calm, well-reasoned responses that offer actual evidence and food for thought.

You want to participate in the marketplace of ideas? Then you can start today by being honest with yourself. You lost this debate badly. So badly I think you should admit to *yourself* that your views on Middle East politics are likely wrong. If you can't do that, or at least respond to critics with more than insults, you are nothing more than a propagandist and a charlatan.

I find it very sad Zephyrus. And in a way it frightens me to see people so gleefully indulging in hate. I have come across one or two members of my profession who will spout such venom from time to time, but they have learned not to do so in my presence. My normal comment to them is "Tell you what, replace the word (Muslim, raghead, etc) with the word nigger and lets hear you repeat that."

That either makes them rethink what it is they are saying, or it quiets them down, either way its all good.

TAJ if you do come back I hope it is in a better, more productive mood. Most of us here are, in fact, atheist. And we certainly do not support one delusional superstition over another, however neither do we support blind hatred.

And please if you are simply going to call me some silly name, don't bother. I've actually lived in places where being bombed, shoot or kidnapped was a real and ever present danger (MSF). Yet with almost no exception, it was the military or would-be powers that be that were behind everything, not the average citizen. I have learned to tell the difference, I have been forced to walk the walk albeit against my will. So please do not assume that I am weak-kneed and frightened of anyone or anything. I know when its time to talk and when its time to grab a big stick and start splitting skulls....NOW is not that time.

flame821--

MSF

you guys are real heroes, man.

TAJ: exemplar of poor impulse control, on so many levels.

What RavenT said.

I second the mad props to flame821. I don't consider myself a coward, but that's risking far more of yourself than I've ever even considered doing of myself. Hats off to you and the rest of the MSF.

Aw, man. I hated to read the Dhimmi link by Simmons. I always liked his books, though Darwin's Blade was a little weak. Disappointed that he may believe that somehow Iran and the rest of the Middle East is going to do what the Soviets never could with an arsenal a bajillion times larger than everything in the Middle East.

Amazing that so many folks can see the Islamic middle east as an existential threat when the real action is economic, not militarry, with the center of gravity moving toward India and China - neither of which are exactly dominated by Islam. Or maybe not so amazing.

Was it Mencken who said that war is God's way of teaching Americans geography? Apparently, he was right about that. Unfortunately, Americans also don't seem to know about any countries that we're not at war with. (England doesn't count; Americans know about it only because they speak American in the U.K., and because that's where James Bond, Austin Powers, Mick Jagger, and the Spice Girls came from.)

A related question is how a "solution" (interesting choice of words by TAJ) to Islam will help us to deal with N. Korea, a country run by a genuine nutjob who, unlike Iran, apparently *does* have nukes.

BTW, if anyone is wondering about this dhimmi that's being thrown about so much, I believe it's from this short story by Dan Simmons.

Nope, the 101st Fighting Keyboarders have been dribbling paranoid, Turner Diaries-esque fantasies about "dhimmis" and "Eurabia" for years. Google either of these terms on any of the major "anti-idiotarian" blogs... if you have the stomach. At the moment, I don't.

Well, let me offer this in the spirit of civil debate:

TAJ is just another of the unfufilled 'winger masses yearning for the fulfillment that can only be given by huge, hot, throbbing liberal *attentions*

C'mere and get it, "big" boy!

Donna, can you please name some of those leading Muslim scientific minds?

I assume this referred to that period when Islam was arguably the center of the scientific world, while Catholic Europe was going through its Dark and Middle Ages and eventually deciding that some Crusades would make for a good time.

Khayyam, Avicenna, Averroes, Nasir al-Din, al-Razi, Geber, and al-Khwarizmi come to mind. The Muslim world was making great progress in astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, physics, etc. while Europe was full of "idiots in armor bashing other idiots in armor."

Maybe it's now the Muslim world that's stuck in a Dark Age mindset, but if they start to get uppity again, it sounds like everything's in order to nuke them back to the Stone Age. Deus vult.

"Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."

Ya want I should start pulling verses from the Old Testament, Watcher? Sport so easy, it's not even Sport, that. Like shooting quail in a pen.

All this business about Iran seeking ONLY to develop nuclear weapons is nonsense. Iran needs nuclear power because the world's oil production is peaking. Which means the world's oil reserves are going to begin shrinking once we're past the peak. Iran is planning for their energy needs unlike the U.S. that only pays lip service to getting off oil while the nutjobs plan on further destabilizing the Middle East so that the U.S. can control the oil.

The problem with this is that Europe, Russia, and East Asia are not going to stand for our interruption in their oil supply. The geopolitics on this will be to isolate the U.S. and start cashing in those I.O.U.s of borrowed money. This way America crashes and burns while the rest of the world remains fairly intact.

Lastly, nukes are a very bad business for continued human life if it gets into the groundwater. The depleted uranium being used in Iraq is already bad enough.

The foolishness of this is incomprehensible. No sane person would ever consider it. Such a course of action is suicidal for America. If we use or just threaten to use nukes we become the greatest danger to everyone else on the planet. And they have a right to take us out pre-emptively as a threat to their own survival.

I sencerely hereby apologise in the name of the rest of us, sane Canadians, for your having to suffer the exposure to the inner workings of the Atheist Jew's "mind" (assuming a contraption involving hamster wheels qualifies for such a label). Unfortunately his kind has is recently become prominent here, and in our defense I blame it on the exposure of some unsuspecting Canadians to Fox News, and prior to that, importations of the likes of Ann Coulter onto the pages of increasingly consoldiated in fewer and fewer hands Canadian media. It seems we too are in for some rough times ahead, choppy seas and scuffles with madmen at the helm before we will manage to right this ship, as we must.

Whoever we are
Wherever we're from
We shoulda noticed by now
Our behavior is dumb
And if our chances
Expect to improve
It's gonna take a lot more
Than tryin' to remove
The other race
Or the other whatever
From the face
Of the planet altogether

They call it THE EARTH
Which is a dumb kinda name
But they named it right
'Cause we behave the same . . .
We are dumb all over
Dumb all over,
Yes we are
Dumb all over,
Near 'n far
Dumb all over,
Black 'n white
People, we is not wrapped tight

Nurds on the left
Nurds on the right
Religious fanatics
On the air every night
Sayin' the Bible
Tells the story
'N makes the details
Sound real gory
'Bout what to do
If the geeks over there
Don't believe in the book
We got over here

You can't run a race
Without no feet
'N pretty soon
There won't be no street
For dummies to jog on
Or doggies to dog on
Religious fanatics
Can make it be all gone
(I mean it won't blow up
'N disappear
It'll just look ugly
For a thousand years . . . )

You can't run a country
By a book of religion
Not by a heap
Or a lump or a smidgeon
Of foolish rules
Of ancient date
Designed to make
You all feel great
While you fold, spindle
And mutilate
Those unbelievers
From a neighboring state

TO ARMS! TO ARMS!
Hooray! That's great
Two legs ain't bad
Unless there's a crate
They ship the parts
To mama in
For souvenirs: two ears (Get Down!)
Not his, not hers (but what the hey?)
The Good Book says:
"It's gotta be that way!"
But their book says:
"REVENGE THE CRUSADES . . .
With whips 'n chains
'N hand grenades . . . "
TWO ARMS? TWO ARMS?
Have another and another
Our God says:
"There ain't no other!"
Our God says
"It's all okay!"
Our God says
"This is the way!"

It says in the book:
"Burn 'n destroy . . .
Repent, 'n redeem
'N revenge, 'n deploy
'N rumble thee forth
To the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side
'Cause they don't go for what's in the book
'N that makes 'em BAD
So verily we must choppeth them up
Or stompeth them down
Or rent a nice French bomb
To poof them out of existance
While leaving their real estate just where we need it
To use again
For temples in which to praise
OUR GOD
("Cause he can really take care of business!")

And when his humble TV servant
With white hair
And a brown suit
And maybe a blonde wife who takes phone calls
Tells us it is okay to do this stuff
Then we're supposed to do it,
'Cause if we don't do it,
We ain't gwine up to hebbin!
(Depending on which book you're using at the time . . . Can't use theirs . . . . . . it's all lies . . . Gotta use mine . . . )
Ain't that right?
That's what they say
Every night . . .
Every day . . .
Listen, we can't really be dumb
If we're just following God's Orders
After all, he wrote this book here
An' in the book it says:
"He made us all to be just like Him," so . . .
If we're dumb . . .
Then God is dumb . . .
(An' maybe even a little bit ugly on the side)

DUMB ALL OVER
A LITTLE UGLY ON THE SIDE
DUMB ALL OVER
A LITTLE UGLY ON THE SIDE
DUMB ALL OVER
A LITTLE UGLY ON THE SIDE
DUMB ALL OVER
A LITTLE UGLY ON THE SIDE

Does anyone here think that the reason that the standards for the military are being lowered is because there will be a draft in place and it will make it easier to draft kids into it??

What in the world is going on here? After enduring about 60% of this thread, I scrolled down to the bottom in exasperation and found a bit of sanity straight from St. Zappa. Good thing for that...

Eh, I've been fighting a rear-guard action to rescue Dan Simmons reputation for the past few days on a couple of forums. Guess I'll have to add this one to the list.

The time-traveller in the story is just a character. If you find his viewpoint distasteful, then he's a successful character. But please don't make the mistake of equating the villain's point of view with the author's.

It's a short story. It's a victorian ghost story using modern SF tropes; it was written to give the reader a feeling of horror, not to uncritically push a wing-nut agenda. The time-traveller is no more Dan Simmons than George-Antoine Kurtz in Heart of Darkness is Joseph Conrad.

Sure, and Michael Chrichton's "global warming is a lie" screed was just meant to induce a feeling of exasperation in the reader and not push a wing-nut agenda.

craig: As has been discussed elsewhere, there is, after all, a large disconnect between Bush voters and the policies of the government, even.

If Atheist Jew wishes to reduce the threat of terrorism, as I take it most of us do, the first step is to find out what provokes it - what makes those particular violent ideologies so attractive? This is actually well known. I'll let him discover most of it for himself, but suffice is to say that the consensus is that bombing Iran (like invading Iraq) will only increase the risk of terrorism, including nuclear terrorism.

Russell: The consensus in the press here seems to be that Iran elected a fundamentalist for much the reasons the US did - because fear is a terrible thing.

tng: The Cold War successful?? Yes, the USSR broke up. Was that the only goal? Russia is still ruled by a bunch of thugs and nasties enriching themselves and making everyone else miserable. The Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe are admittedly a bit better off, though there are still many, many problems. Also, it seems clear to me that the US only "won" by chance - the USSR had started to implode on its own by the time Reagan's administration started their moves.

Well, I haven't read Crichton's book, but from what I remember of the reviews, the hero is fighting a world-wide conspiracy of lying scientists or something? So it's a pretty safe bet, even without Crichton's subsequent spoutings, that he might very well believe that.

The Dan Simmons story is just a short story, so there's not a lot of room for big banners pointing to the hero and the villain, but there is nothing to indicate that the time-traveller is the hero of this piece. There is nothing to indicate that Simmons (the writer, not the narrator) considers the time-traveller's hateful message as gospel truth, any more than PZ necessarily agrees with TAJ just because TAJ spouted off in PZ's blog.

Keith, I was just making an offhand remark. What I was thinking of in particular was the tit-for-tat policy behind M.A.D. It seems like that particular aspect of the cold war did work. Neither Russia or the U.S. used nuclear weapons except on themselves (in testing). There's also that whole detente thing too which worked pretty well. Both of these were peaceful, though problematic, solutions. Yet in the last few years we've thrown it all away. Anyway, my apologies.

All this anger and debate of nuclear war reminds me of a poem I read years ago. This is for all the hawks out there.

There will come soft rain and the smell of the ground,
And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;

And frogs in the pools singing at night,
And wild plum-trees in tremulous white;

Robins will wear their feathery fire
Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;

And not one will know of the war, not one
Will care at last when it is done.

Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree
If mankind perished utterly;

And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn,
Would scarcely know that we were gone.

-Sara Teasdale-

We as Homo sapiens and a good many other organisms may die in nuclear war, but life, with its ability to change and adapt, will survive.

Has anyone considered the fact that as many as ten nations have nuclear capabilities, but only one has ever dropped an atomic bomb on people. That one nation is the USA and everyone needs to read Hiroshima to understand why the world as a whole is so hesitant to start a nuclear war.

I am not a liberal pansy, I am a liberal. And if TAJ really thinks all liberals are pansies, then why do so many felons vote for Democrats when they get out of prison and their rights are restored?

This is probably a dead thread by now, but I just scrounged through my blog and found this delightful rant regarding Iran, from long before Hersh told us they're prepping the nukes.