Text 15271, 118 rader
Skriven 2007-06-05 02:53:12 av Vorlonagent (1684.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: unions
==================

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ehqr43tr0jh8a85um0gn5qv0uaqgbu3u0f@4ax.com...

>>Untrue.  A plutonium bomb casing is VERY difficult.  That's *why* K got a
>>pop and not a boom.  Whereas with a uranium bomb it's the refining that's
>>the hard part.
>>
>>NK no doubt got some useful information from their "pop" but until they
>>test, they don't know if they have it right.
>
> I don't know why their bomb fizzled, but they /did/ have the designs,
> which are the hard part of making a plutonium bomb, having purchased
> them from Pakistan.
>
> But, in the end, it doesn't make a difference. Even if there were only
> a 25% chance that a second North Korean bomb would take out Seoul or
> New York, it's more than enough, because we aren't going to take that
> risk if we can possibly avoid it.
>
>>'In the master document, Iran talks about ensuring "full transparency"
>>and other measures to assure the U.S. that it will not develop nuclear
>>weapons. Iran offers "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization."
>>Iran also contemplates an end to "any material support to Palestinian
>>opposition groups" while pressuring Hamas "to stop violent actions
>>against civilians within" Israel (though not the occupied
>>territories). Iran would support the transition of Hezbollah to be a
>>"mere political organization within Lebanon" and endorse the Saudi
>>initiative calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
>>conflict.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>...and you believe them?
>
> I don't think that's the real question. Iran isn't a monolith: they
> have doves and hawks, reformers and conservatives just as we do. We're
> popular with the Iranian public, and we know that there are voices in
> the Iranian elite who have been asking why they're still at odds with
> the United States when we've taken care of their worst enemies, Saddam
> and the Sunnis and Al Quada and the Taliban. And Iran took /our/ side
> after 9/11.
>
> What we had here, I think, was a case of the reformers finding common
> ground with the conservatives, whose main concern was American
> military action.
>
> So the real question in my mind is not whether the Iranians were
> telling the truth, but whether the rational voices would prevail
> against the fading but still powerful hard liners. Now that our own
> hard liners have thrown a wrench in the deal, we'll never know.
>
>>'Iran also demanded a lot, including "mutual respect," abolition of
>>sanctions, access to peaceful nuclear technology and a U.S. statement
>>that Iran did not belong in the "axis of evil." Many crucial issues,
>>including verification of Iran's nuclear program, needed to be
>>hammered out.'
>>
>>http://watandost.blogspot.com/2007/05/us-iran-relations-missed-opportunities.html

>>
>>It's easy to underestimate how fearsome we are: even with the army
>>near its breaking point, we could take out Iran and North Korea in the
>>blink of an eye, and they know it. From their perspective, the
>>acquisition of nuclear weapons -- or the threat of acquiring nuclear
>>weapons -- was a logical step.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>so is deneying them those weapons.
>
> Like we denied them to North Korea? We can't deny them the weapons,
> because we aren't willing to take the steps that would be necessary to
> do that -- stop the world from buying their oil or invade. We do have
> a chance to persuade them that they don't need those weapons, that the
> threat of limited military action and the limited sanctions we can
> manage outweigh any advantages the weapons would provide. All we have
> to do is make them feel secure. And that's what this proposal allows
> us to do. It gives us most of what we want -- hell, it's a wet dream
> of a proposal -- and that would allow us to let them off the hook.
>
>>But -- and this is where I think the Adminstration let us down:
>>
>>'Instead, Bush administration hard-liners aborted the process. Another
>>round of talks had been scheduled for Geneva, and Ambassador Zarif
>>showed up - but not the U.S. side. That undermined Iranian moderates.
>>
>>My jaw fairly dropped when I read that.
>>-----------------------------------------------
>>
>>You could only be disappointed if you thought the Iranians were being
>>genuine.
>>
>>You're projecting your own viewpoint onto the Iranians.
>
> No, see above. And if the Iranians weren't genuine, so what? We'd be
> no worse off than we are today.
>
> That's one of the reasons this administration makes me cringe. They're
> so arrogant that there's no possibility of success, no possibility of
> progress. We alienate our allies, we lose opportunities to reach
> agreements with our enemies, and as a result, we keep ending up on the
> losing end of the stick. They've taken an overwhelming military,
> economic, and moral advantage, and left us treading water in the
> middle of the Atlantic. It's like Caligula sending the Roman legions
> to conquer a marsh. It's like a tyrannosaur sinking in a tar pit. It's
> like whaling with Ahab.
>
> -- 
> Josh
>
> "The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet
> that people have the right to live life as they please,
> as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. . . .
> The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members
> do not care about the Constitution and they are the
> ones making all the noise." - Barry Goldwater
>
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)