I don’t think we should invade Iran (madness) but I am deeply troubled by the prospect of Iran obtaining nukes.

Agreed.

No, what bothers me is that even Iran’s public posture is one of open hatred and anger. And as we all know, what governments do below the radar (ours included) is always worse than what they do openly.

I understand that we should always assume that Iran is doing is worse than what it is that they say they are doing. Any overture or pretense at negotiation should reflect this. And while it has not yet been confirmed that Iran’s nuclear program is a weapons program, the highest levels of our government should be operating under the silent assumption that from minute one Iran’s “nuclear power” program was a weapons program. (It’s counterproductive, however, for this to be our government’s loudly proclaimed, public stance as well, but I’ve already gone over why they’d want to do this even it is counterproductive.)

I can’t agree that what you said qualifies as a universal, however. Governments such as the US and that of the former USSR always kept up a facade of being more harmless and peaceful than they actually are, because they wanted to build themselves up to be a benevolent empire. However, at the opposite end of the scale, there are rogue regimes like North Korea whose governments would sometimes want to bluster and sound more dangerous and menacing than they actually are. Where in the scale does Iran fit?

Iran is not a bankrupt dictatorship like North Korea or the former Iraq - it is well integrated into global political affairs and would be helped more than hurt by the appearance of amiability. However, I’m not entirely sure that the quirky cabal ruling Iran has quite gotten that message, and for sure a direct comparison between the US government’s motives and those of Iran’s is doomed to be a hopelessly incomplete one.

But i simply cannot understand how anyone with a good knowledge of how these things actually work would be so blase about ANYONE’S ability to stop it from happening. Especially because we know that there are actually quite a few people who would like it to happen

I am not blase. No one in America takes the idea of nuclear weapons lightly. I’m reminded of the first presidential debate between Kerry and Bush; when asked what they thought the greatest single danger to America was, Kerry said in unequivocal terms, “nuclear proliferation”. Bush waxed on about a generic War on Terror, which could mean anything from confronting grave global threats to confiscating more Cokes at the airport terminal.

And while I can sympathize with the “no nukes, no potential for nukes, no possibility for potential for nukes, no matter the cost” stance, I have reason to distrust those who hammer it most incessantly. Going to North Korea a bit. While North Korea lacks the clear intention of Iran - anyone who thinks North Korea is nearly as hostile to South Korea as Iran is to Israel clearly knows nothing about the political situation in Korea, though I wouldn’t put it past neocons to actually know anything about the world - it surely makes up for it in terms of capability in that they have already demonstrated some actual nuclear ability. What “no matter what the cost”-type scenarios do pro-Iran hawks have on North Korea? What are their thoughts on the matter? Likely, they understand that while it has the potential to become very grave, it can be most likely be handled in a sensible manner without the need for throwing international tantrums - we got through a Cold War the very same way. And the reason the two situations differ is because the political considerations are different. Well, I’m not willing to compromise the best courses of action for political considerations.

You don’t need a nuclear bomb to be delivered by a missile. You don’t even need for it to be especially portable. You don’t need to get it OFF a container ship–though it’d be more damaging if you detonated it in Times Square, there are plenty of container ships, barges, and the like that get damn close to a lot of major cities.

Again, I very much doubt that a nuclear device of any sort could be delivered on American soil. I think a lot of people forget, but US intelligence predicted 9/11 months ahead, based on a smattering of suspicious news and fishy flight-school-attending patterns in Florida.

No country in history has projected power through unconventional tactics and terrorism, which has only ever been a defensive strategy. Iran could cripple America with rampant support of nuclear terrorism, but it could be doing so right now - there are many, many dangerous weapons out there that are easier to obtain and more plentiful than nukes. The major variable in the equation that changes is with nuclear capability is conventional power, something that’s still far off on the horizon for Iran.

I don’t think we should invade Iran (madness) but I am deeply troubled by the prospect of Iran obtaining nukes.

Not that I necessarily believe that Iran would openly use them. Sure, they know that launching a nuclear missile into Israel or elsewhere would not be a winning fight.

No, what bothers me is that even Iran’s public posture is one of open hatred and anger. And as we all know, what governments do below the radar (ours included) is always worse than what they do openly.

As I’m sure you know, as recently as a few days ago, the Iranian president railed against Israel. Bring up everything from the Holocaust (”fake”) to the existence of israel (”We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them”)

I then ask myself: Is this person crazy/angry enough to openly launch a nuclear attack against another nuclear nation? i can’t firmly say “no”, which bothers me (though I would agree it’s unlikely.)

But I ask the followup: Is this person crazy/angry en0ugh to “accidentally” allow nuclear weaponry or materials to be “lost” or “stolen” or somehow acquired by a third party? Is this person crazy enough to give third parties funding in their attempt to gain more and more powerful weapons to be used in furtherance of terrorist acts? Here, unlike the above, all evidence points to “yes.”

Making matters worse is that some folks seem to think these sorts of things are stoppable. They’re not.

You don’t need a nuclear bomb to be delivered by a missile. You don’t even need for it to be especially portable. You don’t need to get it OFF a container ship–though it’d be more damaging if you detonated it in Times Square, there are plenty of container ships, barges, and the like that get damn close to a lot of major cities.

You don’t need for it to be in a container. You only need to put it in a truck and get it upwind of Jerusalem, in line with all those other truck shipments. And so on.

And of course, you don’t even necessarily need to make a nuclear bomb, so even if you can’t make the kyrton switches you would be OK. If you have enough material and the right conventional weapon you can make an unusually horrific dirty bomb, which, in the right area, would pretty much render it uninhabitable.

I am deeply terrified of war in all its forms. But i simply cannot understand how anyone with a good knowledge of how these things actually work would be so blase about ANYONE’S ability to stop it from happening. Especially because we know that there are actually quite a few people who would like it to happen

I am not a religious man, but if I were, i would pray that Iran doesn’t get nukes. I’d pray that someone–Israel, U.S., anyone–bombs the facility soon.

Who is the elitist now Hillary Clinton?

In case any of you are still harboring any lingering suspicions that there might be anything at all that a Republican can say without being accused of racism:

The “hard-working Americans, white Americans” is a classic Wallace/Helms/Buchanan equation

Since your own examples contradict your definition, and since you can’t name even one current left-wing anti-racist who you don’t consider a “race hustler,” my definition stands: A “race hustler” is just a pejoritive name right-wingers call left-wing anti-racist activists.

I think who is or isn’t a “race-hustler” can be seen by the results one achieves through their actions as an “anti-racist”.

By that metric, much of the DNC (and by implication, leftie anti-racists) circa 1980 to 1992, are “race-hustlers”. Having watched the drum-beat of the “Rainbow Coalition” “Let’s all sing Kumbaya” diminish from good white folk, at least race pandering seems to have ebbed from the left.

In terms of outcome, the right, which makes no pretense to help brown-skinned-people, are less of the “race-hustler” variety and achieve about the same results without the incessant pandering. Not that they achieve much by way of results either, just saying they seem to get about as little done as lefties without pounding their chests …

Ref Iran: What I want is not exactly the point. The point is what happens when Iran’s centrifuges get going and terrorists start getting nukes. None of that is my doing, nor is it affected by my druthers.

And this is another reason I’m going to vote for Obama in the general election.

Well more than half the reason we have conflicts in the Middle East is because we persist in acting like most of those countries are (a) British Colonies, (b) French Colonies, (c) American Colonies now that they are no longer British or French.

The best thing to happen for Iran in modern history was the Islamic Revolution. It clearly signaled the end of colonial imperialism, which is supposed to be this HUGE American value. We even have a holiday all about ending colonial imperialism — July 4th. Yet time and again, when some country finally casts off the bonds of colonialist oppression, what do we do? Treat them like dirt.

We’re a bunch of stupid hypocrites and I think Obama understands that better than either of the two main candidates. Certainly better than John “100 Years In Iraq” McCain or Hillary “Nuke ‘em ’til They Glow” Clinton.

That name study is interesting. Didn’t “Emily” come in last?

Ummm, no, “Emily” came in first.

I’m assuming the rest of your “information” is just as accurately remembered.

So contrary to your definition of “race hustler,” the prospect of enrichment is irrelevant to who you label a “race hustler.”

Since your own examples contradict your definition, and since you can’t name even one current left-wing anti-racist who you don’t consider a “race hustler,” my definition stands: A “race hustler” is just a pejoritive name right-wingers call left-wing anti-racist activists.

(Since you called me “Amp,” I’m assuming it’s okay for me to call you “Matt” for short.)

(And as a matter of fact, I am secretly your mother. But I can’t admit that, because if I did, it wouldn’t be a secret, now would it?)

My point is that accusations of racism are about 90% bogus and known to be bogus by the accuser.

Since (assuming you lack mind-reading powers) you have no way of knowing what the “accuser” knows, that’s not a factual statement; it’s just another ad hom. Do you have anything to say that isn’t ad hom?

There’s no way of arguing with ad hom; you’ve just decided that everyone you disagree with is an Evil Person with Evil Motives. I’m bored by that sort of argument; please confine your points here to more constructive areas.

Are 90% of claims of racism “bogus”? You don’t give a source for this remarkable statistic, nor do you give any evidence to support your claim. As I’ve pointed out over and over in this thread, there’s no doubt that racism remains a real and important factor in US life today, to the disadvantage of many people of color.

What’s interesting is that the one time in this thread you’ve referenced a specific, peer-reviewed study, your factual claims about the study’s results were completely wrong (the names study). This suggests that you think that studies finding racism are “bogus” even when their results are clear-cut. Is it possible, therefore, that your impression that claims of racism are nearly always “bogus” represents your bias, rather than representing the actual state of the world?

Speaking of studies, as I’m sure you know, a recent study found that on average, employers are as likely to hire a white applicant fresh out of prison as they are to hire a black applicant with no criminal record. To me, that sounds like complaints about racist discrimination are not “90% bogus.”

(Oh, and by the way, not that I’m really very interested in your long anecdotes, but there are a bunch of charter schools in Detroit.)

http://www.donotfeedtheenergybeast.com/

Amp, I did not call anyone anything. It was a neutral expression of amazement, as in “holy cow”, or “holy shit”, or “holy flaming shitbags!”

For what it’s worth, I got that.

Matthew, please don’t call other posters here “shitbags.” Thanks.

Amp, I did not call anyone anything. It was a neutral expression of amazement, as in “holy cow”, or “holy shit”, or “holy flaming shitbags!” Specifically, amazement that, 5 years after I first encountered it @ CalPundit, Richard Aubrey is still (ahem) hustling the same specious argument re: race (and using the same fallacious tactics).

Somebody should drop Tristero a line…

Also, unless you are secretly my mother, please do not call me ‘Matthew’ ever again. My preferred pseudonym is (and has been for over a decade) ‘matttbastard’.

Thank you.

* * *

Amp. That name study is interesting. Didn’t “Emily” come in last? Some white bread woman’s name was last.
More complicated than the easy conclusion.

This response is wrong on so many levels, Richard.

First of all, you’re just wrong factually: Names that got fewer callbacks from employers than “Emily” include “Aisha,” “Keisha,” “Tamika,” “Lakisha,” and “Tanisha,” for example. Aisha and Keisha — niether of which is a “white bread woman’s name” — were the female names that came in last. (The male names that came in last were “Rasheed” and “Tramayne.”)

Second, you’re showing a breathtaking ignorance of basic statistics. Even if you were right, and “Emily” got the fewest callbacks — and you’re not — why do you think that would prove anything? If it’s true that just having a “Black” name, on average, makes employers less likely to return your calls — and it is true — then the existence of an outlier doesn’t disprove that, in any way.

No wonder you don’t think racism exists seem to think racism is unimportant nowadays; you don’t understand basic statistics.