 |
May 14, 2006Iran and Prom Dances: The Steynian ViewHugh Hewitt interviews Mark Steyn: HH: Now in today's AP bulletin from Indonesia, Ahmadinejead is again calling Israel, "a tyrannical regime that will one day be destroyed," and going on about it. But meanwhile, over at Politecompany, Council On Foreign Affairs company, Greg Djerejian, who writes at the Belgravia Dispatch, I quote, "at some point, I'm hard pressed to see how we avoid talking with the Iranians, period. Bottom line, the Iranians have become players. And chiming on about just bombing them into submission isn't going to get us anywhere, save maybe on the Hugh Hewitt Show." I think he's talking specifically about you, Mark Steyn, earlier in that paragraph. What do you think about Polite Company refusing...the Council On Foreign Affairs refusing to deal with this problem? I can't tell here whether Mark is calling me "smart", "ludicrous", or a "pimply nerd". Perhaps a combo of all three, throwing in Hugh's "polite company" for good measure. As for his comment: "[B.D.'s] falling into the sort of standard stripe pants...as long as you are indulging in the form and the process of diplomacy, that that's some kind of strategy. It's not. In most cases, it's just the absence of strategy". Perhaps, perhaps. But as Churchill said, jaw jaw is better than war war, wherever possible. And I'd politely suggest to Mark (whom I also think is a smart guy, btw) that it's more "ludicrous", at least at the present juncture, to be recommending a bombing campaign, as compared to attempting a resumption of strategic dialogue (see my post directly above for my proposal on this score). As for high school proms and rebuffed suitors, here's a pic of me dancing with my wife at my wedding in Brazil back in October 2005. Believe it or not, I met her in high school, many moons ago, so you'll see I'm always hopeful the nerdy guy can get lucky Mark!
Comments
Thanks for the picture, it was the best part of the post and the two of you look great! Michael Posted by: Michael Pecherer at May 15, 2006 03:25 AM | Permalink to this comment
I believe it was actually Harold MacMillan (not Churchill) who said, "Jaw jaw is better than war war" -- though MacMillan attributed the comment to Churchill. This was likely a deliberate and mischevious mis-attribution, in the same tradition as Marx's mis-attribution to Hegel of the insight that "all great world-historic facts and personages" tend to repeat themselves.... Posted by: Nils at May 15, 2006 07:06 AM | Permalink to this comment
Steyn's falsehoods about the course of US-Iranian relations since 9/11 are breathtaking. The US rebuffs Iran's proposal that it swap AQ prisoners in its custody for US help against the terrorist MEK; the US upbraids the Swiss for bringing us the Iranian cooperation proposal in May 2003, and Hewitt says it's Iran that doesn't want to deal and us that thought there was a "modus vivendi." They really will say anything in a forum where they can't be called on it. Posted by: Jim Henley at May 15, 2006 01:15 PM | Permalink to this comment
You're being accused of an absence of strategy by a leading member of the group whose entire geo-political strategy amounts only to this: No matter what world events occur, yell "Neville Chamberlain!" as loud as you can. I'm fond of WWII movies myself. And of course Churchill is one of my heroes, and Chamberlain is a sad figure. But Steyn and others of the neo-con outlook seem to be so traumatized by the story of Neville Chamberlain that whenever they approach a new situation their only thought is "must. avoid. looking. like. Neville-Chamberlain!" These are people who won't sign a car rental agreement because then they might have to hold up a piece of paper with signatures on it. It's just pathological. And it indicates a total absence of strategy. Real strategy involves a willingness to consider a variety of diplomatic and military means to attains one's national ends. And that includes talking, when talking might be the best way to attain them. But no--can't possibly talk to anyone, even if it's in the best interests of America, because: BOO! Neville Chamberlain!! And away they run, screaming. Posted by: weMust at May 15, 2006 01:31 PM | Permalink to this comment
Let's also remember that after getting his piece of paper, Chamberlain decided to start building planes and tanks as fast as the British economy could support it. Sometimes stalling for time is the best you can manage. Posted by: Antiquated Tory at May 15, 2006 03:14 PM | Permalink to this comment
These are people who won't sign a car rental agreement because then they might have to hold up a piece of paper with signatures on it. Not even noon here on the East Coast of the US and weMust already wins Quote of the Day for the entire blogosphere. I'm taking the afternoon off. Posted by: Jim Henley at May 15, 2006 04:23 PM | Permalink to this comment
Dude, you are a total smooth stud. And that ain't no snark. Posted by: NeoDude at May 15, 2006 04:35 PM | Permalink to this comment
That comment was directed at smoothed-out Greg and his beautiful wife. Pimped out in Brazil, no less...man! Posted by: NeoDude at May 15, 2006 04:40 PM | Permalink to this comment
While your fans applaud your Chamberlain-strategy as somehow not really being Chamberlainian, I still can't make out the advantage you see in making the Iranians believe we are only as serious as the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese and US Democrats about stopping their nuclear program. Of course the US will "negotiate" as long as possible before risking the potentially disasterous political consequences of military action, but doesn't it seem more likely that such negotiations might be taken more seriously if backed with credible threats of force? Or is that just another lesson of history your fans would rather feel that they have risen above rather than learn from? Posted by: Reindeerrider at May 15, 2006 08:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
I read the interview by Hewitt of Mark Steyn, your rebuttal, and the comments on your blog. It was really very interesting, and leads me to ask a couple of questions of you and of your readers: 1. Do you believe that the Iranian president and various of their religious leadership mean what they have said about the use of nuclear weapons against (a) Israel and (b) infidels being justified? 2. Are there any circumstances under which military action against Iran to block their acquisition of nuclear weapons would be justified? Be honest, now. Aren't your answers (1) No and (2) No, Never? Then how is Steyn's charge incorrect that you don't differ in policy from Neville Chamberlain and the pre-WW II appeasement crowd? Posted by: Spinvalve at May 15, 2006 08:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
Was Reagan all Chamberlain when he propped up Hussein? Latin American dictators? I mean, do folks actually know what Chamberlain did?
Greg, Just curious as to who you wish to send on a *diplomatic* mission to Iran. Fool me once, shame on you -- fool me twice, even after 27 years... weMust, Even supposing you didn't have to travel to Iran, would any of you personally lend a significant sum of money to Mahmoud, Rafasanjani, or the mullahs-behind-the-scenes? If you wouldn't be willing to do that, why should any of the rest of us trust a country which has repeatedly through its words and deeds denied recognizing the sovereignty of the U.S., Israel, Lebanon, and Argentina in the past. Any negotiation with the current Iranian regime will produce the equivalent of a car-rental agreement with Amish Rentals. Posted by: Todd Gunther at May 15, 2006 09:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
For the benefit of Neodude (above), Chamberlain sold out the Czechs in the hopes of averting an inevitable conflict with Iran, uh, I mean Germany. (Which is in part why Churchill referred to WWII as the UNNECESSARY WAR. Posted by: Reindeerrider at May 15, 2006 09:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
Churchill did say, as we are constantly reminded, that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. But it's not better than slavery or living one's life in perpetual threat from fascists, which is why Churchill dumped the jaw-jaw when it was clear that the two sides were rather firm on their talking points. Talk with Iran, don't talk with Iran, what's the diference? You (and, yes, this includes you Greg) are just another infidel in the way. If you think that establishing diplomatic relations with a nation whose officially-stated policy is the destruction of both the United States and Israel, whose government has funded murals calling for their destruction, whose government hangs banners in its foreign ministry calling for their destruction, whose government holds suicide-bomber recruitment drives and whose head of state thinks that Allah held people's eyelids open while he speaks... ...well, you're just a LOT more sophisticated than I am. Congratulations! Posted by: NewSisyphus at May 16, 2006 12:16 AM | Permalink to this comment
The question is not "should we talk with Iran or should we bomb them?" Posing that question gives people an easy escape. The question, instead, is this: "What do you propose to do if you become convinced that Iran will build a nuclear bomb if all the West is prepared to do is to impose economic sanctions and to offer various carrots (e.g., security guarantees) to stop them from doing so?"
Please give an exact quote on this, translating the full paragraph, and indicate how this is diferent from France and Russia's promise to use nukes if necessry, or the US's own refusal to take nukes of the trouble. Posted by: erg at May 16, 2006 01:47 AM | Permalink to this comment
Iran (either under the mullahs or the Shah) has never invaded another country unless it was attacked first in an active war, never used WMDs unless attacked first with WMDs. The US -- now when was the last time the US invaded someone ? Or refused to recognize another country's sovreignty ? And which country initiated a coup in the other country to bring a monarch back to power and overthrow a largely democratic premier ? Which country has interfered more in the other country's government ? Posted by: erg at May 16, 2006 01:54 AM | Permalink to this comment
Well, our head of state thinks that he talks to God, so theres one commonality there. And when it comes to inflammatory rhetoric, there s a lot of it coming out of Iran, but when you look at the practical situation, Iran looks deterrable. I don't know if diplomacy will work now, but there was certainly a time under Khatami, when it seemed to be paying some dividends. The US just helped Vietnam get a WTO deal. This is the country that is still ruled by a communist government that killed 58000 Americans, held and tortured several others. In the past, Richard Nixon went to China. China was still then ruled by the same party that had fought us in Korea, and were supporting Vietnam and Cambodian communists. No -- its not necessarily the case that diplomacy will succeed, but the notion that even pursuing it is somehow evil is just a right wing fantasy.
If you think that establishing diplomatic relations with a nation whose officially-stated policy is the destruction of both the United States and Israel, whose government has funded murals calling for their destruction, whose government hangs banners in its foreign ministry calling for their destruction, whose government holds suicide-bomber recruitment drives and whose head of state thinks that Allah held people's eyelids open while he speaks... Posted by: NewSisyphus at May 16, 2006 12:16 AM | Permalink to this comment Now that sounds like nations under Saudi rule. Posted by: NeoDude at May 16, 2006 02:07 AM | Permalink to this comment
Well, heres another question or set of related questions "What sort war-war exactly do you propose ? What sort of realistic impact do you think this will have on Iran's nuclear program, on its people's support for the government ? How do you plan to respond to any counter-attack Iran might initiate, especially in Iraq ? And can you give us some reasonable estimate for the number of troops, time period and cost of this war ? Finally, is there any reason we should trust you given how completely wrong you were on Iraq ?'' Those are the questions I think any of the 101st fighting keyboarders will find hard to answer. After they answer that, then maybe we can discuss what type of action is approriate.
Well.. nice discussion; here are my two cents worth: I for one think it is quite possible that the Irananians are a LOT closer to have a working nuclear bomb than the IAEA, and their liberal supporters think. Considering that only a few days ago the same weak IAEA announced that it had found traces of weapons grade plutonium at yet another Iranian military site, and yet despite the lies, thievery, and cover ups, we are still to believe the IAEA's and UN's timeline? Naw.. I'm not that naive'. I think that Iran is not a country that be trusted any farther than I could throw it. If they say we have only 500 centrifuges, I assume they are lying, and have many many more. A root problem is that the regime has proven itself to be lying repeatedly on a host of issues. The truth is that this terrorist sponsoring Muslim regime simply cannot be allowed to finish completing it's atomic cycle. To do so would insure war, and perhaps the complete destruction of both Israel AND Iran, leading to full blown world war. We may not be able to avoid this anyway. Time will tell. But, I will point out that this is primarily an AMERICAN security issue. Furthermore we have Iraq to stage from, and I feel that we can certainly destroy their nuclear sites, and most likely will have to. I simply can never trust the UN and it's brethren again, and understand that the USA will have to take care of this world threat as well. Most other nations are paralyzed by liberalism, Socialism, political correctness and fear. We cannot afford to be. Posted by: Conservative Jedi at May 16, 2006 03:11 AM | Permalink to this comment
"Considering that only a few days ago the same weak IAEA announced that it had found traces of weapons grade plutonium at yet another Iranian military site, and yet despite the lies, thievery, and cover ups, we are still to believe the IAEA's and UN's timeline?" It was actually uranium, not plutonium. And the timeline was not the IAEA's at all, it was that by independent experts.
Iraq is such a wonderful place to stage from isn't it ? All those IEDs, for instance. I can understand not trusting the UN again. After all the UN weapons inspectors turned out to be absolutely correct on the matter of WMDs in Iraq, and the US turned out to be absolutely wrong. No one likes to be proven wrong and one should not trust people who were correct.
OH.. also a response to erg. you said: "Well, heres another question or set of related questions " What sort of realistic impact do you think this will have on Iran's nuclear program, on its people's support for the government ? How do you plan to respond to any counter-attack Iran might initiate, especially in Iraq ? And can you give us some reasonable estimate for the number of troops, time period and cost of this war ? Finally, is there any reason we should trust you given how completely wrong you were on Iraq ?'' easy. 1.What sort war-war exactly do you propose ? that sort of war-war. 2.(a)What sort of realistic impact do you think this will have on Iran's nuclear program? I believe this will have a catastrophic effect on their weapons programs, and will set it back decades perhaps forever. 2.(b)on its people's support for the government ? Frankly, I don't care right now about that. It has little bearing on US security issues at this time. 3. How do you plan to respond to any counter-attack Iran might initiate, especially in Iraq ? I have no doubt that our now battle hardened military can deal with whatever Iran may wish to try. My plan? See answer 1... overwhelmimg force is the answer. 4.And can you give us some reasonable estimate for the number of troops, time period and cost of this war ? I would add approximately 175000 more troops. I would pull these troops from Japan, and Europe. Do we need hundreds of thousands of troops in these places? I have advocated for years the redeployment of American forces worldwide to meet current needs. Time and cost? Completely irrelevant. All that matters is victory. I am sure it will be longer and more expensive than you would like... perhaps you would rather have a Muslim dictatorship imposed on the United States? 5. Finally, is there any reason we should trust you given how completely wrong you were on Iraq ?'' I reject this. We simply do not know the outcome yet of this. Democracy hasn't ever been tried in this region, and you are a fool to expect such immediate outcomes. I point out that World War II ended a LONG time ago, and yet we have hundreds of thousands of troops there. It took many many years for democracy to root in other areas of the world, and frankly it is foolish of you to expect a nation with poor education, health and welfare, and with absolutely no history of democracy to write up a constitution and bill of rights and solve their own internal religious and racial issues in a few months time. I realize how badly you want and need for America to fail, and I am ashamed that you put partisan politics above what's best for America. THIS is why liberals are scorned in discussions on national security...
Mike M.. shouldn't you have typed: "independent" experts? When those opinions were published, they simply ignored facts like the one I quoted earlier. And yes it WAS uranium, not plutonium. Wow, that's a big difference. Still weapons grade. And yes, Iraq IS a wonderful place to stage from...it DOES border Iran. Seems ok to me. Posted by: Conservative Jedi at May 16, 2006 03:39 AM | Permalink to this comment
Yes, I see it now. Iran is going to deploy its army across 2 oceans over its non-existent fleet, against a US that has a huge nuclear arsenal and an overwhelming military advantage to establish a dictatorship in the US. The same Iran that has not invaded any country for 60 odd years. At least no one can accuse you of producing rational arguments. Or of rationally considering costs for the US. It would be interesting to speculate on how the US would fund your proposed wars.
Actually, dumbo one doesn't even have to consider that. We have to consider all the pre-war threats of WMDs we were told about and all the rosy promises for the future. You were completely mistaken on that, and that alone should put you in doubt. ANd incidentally, Darth Looser, democracy has been tried in the region -- in Turkey, in Israel, in the Palestinan territories, in India, in akistan (sometimes), even a limited form in Iran.
Don't tell me all that. You are the guys who claimed that war would be resolved in a brief period of time, that we would be greated with flowers (which we were for about 2 weeks), that the cost would be less han 100 Billion dollars. Frankly, you were unbelievably, foolishly wrong, then you expect us to trust you again.
I realize how you are incapable of rational thought, and how you believe that anyone who opposes you is a traitor. I realize how you are perfectly willing to expend trillions of dollars, 10s of thousands of American lives and millions of Iranians to satisfy your fever dreams and your paranoia. That is why people don't trust your great leader any more.
Far more than you, 101st keyboarder. Posted by: erg at May 16, 2006 03:55 AM | Permalink to this comment
CJ, I bow to your superior wisdom. You are capable of immediatedly determining whether experts were accurate or not, despite being unable to distinguish between uranium and plutonium, That would have stopped a lesser mortal, but for you lack of knowledge is no barrier to pontification. No one knows how long Iran's program might take, but at least the independent experts or "independent" experts if you will know the difference between a uranium and a plutonium fuel cycle, something that seems to have passed you by. You'll pardon me if I don't think your grasp of the force is strong enough to figure out what Iran is doing from the comfort of your mothers basement. And yes, Iraq does border Iran. Good thing they taught you something in grade school geography. A place where Iran has a lot of contacts and militias allied with them. Any attack on Iran could make our task of stabilizing Iraq impossible. I suppose if you don't really consider Iraq important, these are minor considerations. Posted by: Mike m at May 16, 2006 04:02 AM | Permalink to this comment
"24 hour a day bombing sorties to reduce their miltary effectiveness to near zero. Special forces missions to destroy critical communications, secret and hardened sites. Round the clock propaganda, after securing or destroying their television and radion and telephone systems. Repeated sorties against hardened WMD sites, using bunker busters and other ordinances where applicable." Now CJ -- weren't we all told that these sort of attacks wouldn't work against Iraq, that we had to invade. Now this is going to work against Iran and its most secret sites ? And propaganda is likely to be really effective when you're trying to bomb a country back to the stone age as you apparently want to do. "I believe this will have a catastrophic effect on their weapons programs, and will set it back decades perhaps forever." I defer once again to your great expertise.
erg, You may surprised by this.. I don't care for Bush much. He has disappointed on a host of issues. Immigration, spending, social policies, etc. He has been weak in every area except the war on terror (and yes, we ARE at war with a large percentage of Muslims in this world, like it or not.) I believe that Bush was wrong in many ways in Iraq. For example.. when Iraqis started looting, we should have been shooting looters. The thing you don't seem to get, is that this WAR.. there are no civil rights at play, there are no excuses to soft pedal or pander to leftists and peaceniks. This is the most important issue to face America in my lifetime (I am 40). If we do not get a handle on terrorist Muslim regimes like this, and prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, terrorists WILL use those weapons against us.. try a small nuclear weapon going off in NYC. Would make 911 look like a party. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Example/Example1.shtml And surely you must admit that the rhetoric alone coming from this Muslim theocracy is scary? Can you IMAGINE if a western leader had said ANYTHING like the stuff the Iranian pres has said? I am real tired of defeatism against the threat of irrational Muslim leaders. The political correctness that rules your world has little place in mine. I am a proponent of strength. And why not? Do you believe that Iran would WIN a conflict against us? They would not. By the way... what EXACTLY is your idea on how to solve this issue? Let me guess... negotiate? I say again, Iran cannot be trusted. Didn't you and Jimmy Carter learn this from North Korea? They also said, OK.. give us nuclear power, food, energy, billions in cash, and we PROMISE not to build nukes.. worked really well, huh? So again, what exactly is YOUR solution to the Iranian problem? Posted by: Conservative Jedi at May 16, 2006 04:22 AM | Permalink to this comment
"I would add approximately 175000 more troops. I would pull these troops from Japan, and Europe. Do we need hundreds of thousands of troops in these places? I have advocated for years the redeployment of American forces worldwide to meet current needs." And despite that, you remain breathtakingly ignorant. Most of the troops in Japan and Europe are not considered to be on hardship tours. What this means is that combat trooups are recouping or in training after a combat tour (like Iraq or Afghanistan). So despite what you might think, most of those troops (and there aren't 175K anyway) are not available for deployment. Some of the troops in Japan are needed to backup US forces in South Korea. Posted by: Mike m at May 16, 2006 04:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
Mike M. I consider Iraq, and whether it forms a democratic govt. to be less important than whether terrorist regimes such as Iran aquire the ability to produce atomic bombs. Also, I never said invade.. I said special forces incursions. Those are feet on the ground. I would hope that the so called pro western moderate Muslim youth that the left has talked about all these years are more capable of controlling their own destiny than Iraqis. Maybe they would shake the bonds of opression? And if not, we still need to destroy their ability to finish the cycle. Well if not, we could always invade later. :) But frankly, unlike Iraq, I don't see the reason to invade... yet. Time will tell. This of course assumes that Iran does not use WMD's on our troops. I will point out that Iran certainly DOES have them. And if they use them on our troops, that may well give us the right to use strategic nuclear weapons against their more hardened WMD sites. Or do you not believe that we would have the right and perhaps obligation to respond in kind, if attacked with WMD's? The point being that we don't have to change the government, simply knock out their ability to make nuclear missles and bombs. I never said invade and take down the government, that's all you. But that of course depends on the Iranian reaction to our moves. Also, it is hard for Iranians to produce propaganda without any media. As you may recall, I advocate taking out all their communications, including civilian. I would rather the USA do it, than Israel do it and start a much larger conflict. Because the UN will do NOTHING... so I ask you as well.. what is YOUR plan for dealing with it? Posted by: Conservative Jedi at May 16, 2006 04:36 AM | Permalink to this comment
The thing you don't seem to get (and Bush does, although I'm not a big fan either), is that this is not just WAR. It gains us little if we have to invade country after country in the middle east. Otherwise we end up like Britain, a country bankrupted by its empire. Already we're living on borrowed money from China.
That would have been a true lunatic idea. In a country, where personal possession of guns is so common, the whole country would likely have exploded. In a war, one has to consider the objectives. Your objective seems to be plain violence, with no thought for the after impact. But as 911 taught us, sometimes danger lurks in basements and in hidden doors, and not all of it can be fought with plain violence.
Why, you're the one who said they could institute a dictatorship on us. Posted by: erg at May 16, 2006 04:41 AM | Permalink to this comment
Mike M. There are well over a hundred thousand troops in Europe... Why? They serve no real purpose there, other than financial aid to a strapped German economy. And you are flat wrong about the types of troops: "Most of the troops in Japan and Europe are not considered to be on hardship tours. What this means is that combat trooups are recouping or in training after a combat tour (like Iraq or Afghanistan). So despite what you might think, most of those troops (and there aren't 175K anyway) are not available for deployment. Some of the troops in Japan are needed to backup US forces in South Korea." I proudly served in the US Army as a NBC Specialist (54E). I actually do know a thing or two about NBC warfare. Troops are constantly rotated to different bases. There are many many tens of thousands of troops who have NEVER seen combat duty, because their rotation hasn't come up. Your statement that Japan and Korea are used somehow as some sort of "recovery zone" is absurd. Troops are rotated from these regions to Iraq all the time. My problem is with the NUMBERS. We do not need the bulk of our military in regions without conflict when we have a war to win in the Middle East. We do not need 100K+ in Germany. There are 2.4 million serving now. Only 130K are in Iraq. You do the math, because obviously you are way smarter than this lowly veteran on military matters. Posted by: Conservative Jedi at May 16, 2006 04:46 AM | Permalink to this comment
At the current moment, I actually belive negotiations benefit us more than Iran. They give us more time to stabilize Iraq, and give more time for Iranian citizens to weary of A. Even the mullahs, many of whom seem more interested in lining their pockets, seem to be a little wary of him. There is no indication that Iran's nuclear program is far advanced enough to require immediate action. Does the rhetoric from Iran bother me ? Not really. Most of the mullahs seem to be somewhat deterrable and are not willing to give up their priviilieged position. It would bother me if I were Israeli, but I'm not. So yes, I would keep the spectre of action open, but that should be the last resort. If we were to bankrupt ourselves in a war with Iran, and end up with an exploding middle east, that would be hardly a solution. And ignoring cost in blood and treasure is bloody irrational. Posted by: erg at May 16, 2006 04:52 AM | Permalink to this comment
"I actually do know a thing or two about NBC warfare." And yet you don't know the difference between enriched uranium and plutonium ? Not very competent, were you ? "There are well over a hundred thousand troops in Europe... Why?" Its really no different from deployment on a US base. Its not considered a hardship position. "Your statement that Japan and Korea are used somehow as some sort of "recovery zone" is absurd. " I never said that Korea was used as some sort of recovery zone. "There are 2.4 million serving now. Only 130K are in Iraq" There are a total of around 680K active army + marines. You do the math. Posted by: Mike m at May 16, 2006 04:59 AM | Permalink to this comment
"Also, it is hard for Iranians to produce propaganda without any media. As you may recall, I advocate taking out all their communications, including civilian." You also propose taking out their newspapers ? Their clerics at daily mosques ? All the underground communication lines that they have ? Not likely. Posted by: Mike m at May 16, 2006 05:03 AM | Permalink to this comment
Right-Wing Jedi prays for divine suicide as well, Iranian Mullahs have nothing on our suicidal religious fanatics. Posted by: NeoDude at May 16, 2006 05:04 AM | Permalink to this comment
Right WIng Jedi doesn't seem to be a religious fanatic, just a regular fanatic. Posted by: Mike m at May 16, 2006 05:07 AM | Permalink to this comment
Mike M. Instead of repeated personal attacks, why not offer suggestions? "And yet you don't know the difference between enriched uranium and plutonium ? Not very competent, were you ?" Highly enriched uranium is defined as uranium having an enrichment above 20 percent of the fissionable isotope uranium-235. Weapon-grade plutonium contains less than 7 percent of the isotope plutonium-240. The difference between enriched uranium for a nuclear power plant and for a weapon lies in the level of enrichment. Fuel for a civilian reactor requires 2-3 per cent of uranium-235, while a nuclear bomb needs 90 per cent or more, a range known as highly enriched uranium. Care to apologize? As to your personal attacks on my military service. My job was primarily NBC Defense, with my particular expertise being chemical defense and decontamination. I know very little about the actual process of building a nuclear bomb, and you obviously know very little, even less than I do. Troop strengths... Your numbers are wrong. There are 2.4 million including reserves, and these personnel are rotated in and out, depending on need. Also, we could always institute a draft, should the situation require it. Liberals always seem to offer criticisms without resolution, as if the argument is more important than the matter at hand. I believe in solutions, and solutions generally require action, not always, but usually. My advice is to stop the personal attacks, and please explain how YOU would solve this issue... Posted by: Conservative Jedi at May 16, 2006 05:16 AM | Permalink to this comment
Mike M. Instead of repeated personal attacks, why not offer suggestions? "And yet you don't know the difference between enriched uranium and plutonium ? Not very competent, were you ?" Highly enriched uranium is defined as uranium having an enrichment above 20 percent of the fissionable isotope uranium-235. Weapon-grade plutonium contains less than 7 percent of the isotope plutonium-240. The difference between enriched uranium for a nuclear power plant and for a weapon lies in the level of enrichment. Fuel for a civilian reactor requires 2-3 per cent of uranium-235, while a nuclear bomb needs 90 per cent or more, a range known as highly enriched uranium. Care to apologize? As to your personal attacks on my military service. My job was primarily NBC Defense, with my particular expertise being chemical defense and decontamination. I know very little about the actual process of building a nuclear bomb, and you obviously know very little, even less than I do. Troop strengths... Your numbers are wrong. There are 2.4 million including reserves, and these personnel are rotated in and out, depending on need. Also, we could always institute a draft, should the situation require it. Liberals always seem to offer criticisms without resolution, as if the argument is more important than the matter at hand. I believe in solutions, and solutions generally require action, not always, but usually. My advice is to stop the personal attacks, and please explain how YOU would solve this issue... Posted by: Conservative Jedi at May 16, 2006 05:16 AM | Permalink to this comment
Mike M. The plutonium was a faux pas, and should have originally been uranium. You know this is what I meant and yet persist in trying to avoid the actual point by way of persoanl attack on a minor issue. Again.. your solution? Posted by: Conservative Jedi at May 16, 2006 05:19 AM | Permalink to this comment
erg, you have a point on the timeline benefitting America rather than Iran. I would not propose any military interdiction until at least next year... Or of course if a major terrorist attack happens here and can be traced to Iran, then all bets are off. Posted by: Conservative Jedi at May 16, 2006 05:21 AM | Permalink to this comment
I will add this to the discussion.. just for grins... Making a nuclear weapon involving plutonium has a clear advantage because it needs much smaller quantities - four kilos - than the 25kg of enriched uranium required to produce a bomb. Plutonium does not exist in a natural state, and is the product of reprocessed spent reactor fuel.
and, should you wish to learn more.. start with terms... http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part074/part074-0004.html Posted by: Conservative Jedi at May 16, 2006 05:27 AM | Permalink to this comment
And, may the Force be with you... Posted by: Conservative Jedi at May 16, 2006 05:32 AM | Permalink to this comment
hello! HELLO!! Mike M? you out there???? HELLO? Posted by: jonkendall at May 16, 2006 06:24 AM | Permalink to this comment
"Highly enriched uranium is defined as uranium having an enrichment above 20 percent of the fissionable isotope uranium-235. Weapon-grade plutonium contains less than 7 percent of the isotope plutonium-240. The difference between enriched uranium for a nuclear power plant and for a weapon lies in the level of enrichment. Fuel for a civilian reactor requires 2-3 per cent of uranium-235, while a nuclear bomb needs 90 per cent or more, a range known as highly enriched uranium." Hooray, he knows how to use google. And I am a physicist so I wager I know a lot more about nuclear power than you. At least I know enough not to confuse Plutonium with Uranium and then claim to be an expert in WMDs. And then moreover claim that I have some deep insight into Iran's nuke program. As far as personal attacks go, weren't you the one saying liberals were secretly thrilled to see the US lose ? "hello! HELLO!! Mike M? you out there????" Right here, CJ. I didnt know you cared, but I do have a life away from the blog you know. My solution would indeed be to continue diplomacy, while shutting down nuclear networks like the AQ Khan network. I would also and try and spark internal opposition, especially in Iranian provinces like Kurdistan and in Afghanistan. I would also work on shutting down their links to terror groups abroad,. THe Iranian government is divided and its possible that other factions might be more deterred by the threat of sanctions or war. I wouldn't rule out war as a final step, but in any case -- I would look for experts a bit more knowledgeable than CJ to deduce Iran's nuke program. Of course, unlike CJ, I am not willing to spend trillions and commit a whole draft and dig up 175K troops from thin air just on CJ's intuition Posted by: Mike m at May 16, 2006 02:05 PM | Permalink to this comment
"especially in Iranian provinces like Kurdistan and in Afghanista" I meant Iranian provinces BORDERING Iraqi Kurdish provides and BORDERING Afghanistan. Posted by: MIke M at May 16, 2006 02:14 PM | Permalink to this comment
For a more cogent and less emotional commentary why not check out Edward Luttwak's article at:
|
|
About Belgravia Dispatch
Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries
Lunch w/ the FT...
Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search
The News
Financial Times
New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks
Security
Books
American Scholar
LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner
Archives
Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
