Nuclear hypocrisy

Bart

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,329
Charlie Reese had been rocking the boat lately.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese377.html


Idiots in Israel, along with those American idiots in the punditocracy who can't see where they are going because their vision is blocked by Israeli backsides, are trying to pressure our idiots in the White House to commit an act of insanity.


Let's review a few facts. There is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. Of course the Iranians put a lot of their nuclear facilities underground. After all, they saw the Israelis - in clear violation of international law and without any evidence that Iraq was building a bomb - attack and destroy a nuclear reactor in Baghdad without a peep from the U.S.


Given how the Israelis constantly rant against Iran, Iranians would have been fools not to put as much of it as possible underground.


Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refuses to sign it. Iran allowed international inspectors. Israel never has. Israel has nuclear weapons - and apparently a lot of them. Iran doesn't have any, not one. If you are worried about an Islamic nuke, I remind you that Pakistan already has them. A Hindu nuke? India has them.


So Israel, Pakistan and India all have nuclear weapons, all refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and all are warmly held allies of the idiots in Washington.


Here's another fact to stack against the clear evidence of insanity on the Potomac. Suppose Iran is lying about peaceful uses and does build a bomb (even the Israelis say it will take until 2009). So what? The world is full of nuclear weapons. My whole life, since the 1950s, has been lived 30 minutes away from nuclear annihilation.


People, especially in the press, tend to get hysterical about nuclear weapons. A nuclear bomb is, after all, a bomb. It has, whatever its size, a limited burst radius. Fallout is a captive of the wind. There have been lots of nuclear detonations on the ground and in the atmosphere, counting the two we dropped on Japan, plus all the nuclear tests conducted by us, the Russians, the French and whoever else. So far as I know, the people around the world are still producing normal babies, and no giant spiders or ants have appeared over the horizon.


Furthermore, having five or six nuclear weapons does not make you a threat against a country with 200 nukes (Israel), much less the U.S., which has more than 3,000 nukes.


So let these facts settle into your head. Iran says it seeks to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, as it is legally entitled to do under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is no evidence to contradict that. Iran has said repeatedly that it has no desire to acquire a nuclear weapon. It has never - despite the propaganda based on a misquotation - ever threatened Israel or the United States, or, for that any country not run by a servile suck-up (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) must be weakened or destroyed


We've pretty much destroyed Iraq and Lebanon, so that leaves Syria and Iran. I imagine the neocons plan on Israel taking out Syria while the U.S. carpet-bombs Iran. The neocons are not only idiots, they are evil. They show a complete disdain for peace, a callous disregard for human life and utter contempt for the rule of law. If that ain't evil, the devil had better retire.


So what's afoot? I'll tell you what I think. The neocons in the U.S. and their pet bully, Israel, intend to dominate the Middle East and its oil. That means n. I imagine the neocons plan on Israel taking out Syria while the U.S. carpet-bombs Iran. The neocons are not only idiots, they are evil. They show a complete disdain for peace, a callous disregard for human life and utter contempt for the rule of law. If that ain't evil, the devil had better retire.


Edited by: Bart
 

Charlie

Guru
Joined
Nov 26, 2004
Messages
354
And of course Israel would never sell nuclear weapons technology to another country. Just like it would never sell AWACS or F-16 tech to the PRC.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
4
Location
New Jersey
What I don't get here is how does Charlie Reese plan on dealing with
Muslim terror? Does he really believe that Muslim terror is entirely a
result of United States foreign policy and Israeli domestic and foreign
policy? Hence, concluding that if these two countries merely started
behaving according to Charlie's rules of conduct, then the entire Muslim
world would wear a smile. This seems pollyannish and he doesn't seem
that stupid. So, I'm not sure what he proposes as an alternative to killing
terrorists in the fly paper of Iraq (Iraq attracts terrorists like moths to a
flame) and perhaps expanding that war into other countries that support
terrorism.For my money and I may be mistaken, this strategy is similar
to the one in Vietnam. Of course, I think that one was working, until the
media subverted popular support for it. Which, in a Democracy, doesn't
seem that challenging.

Well, after scanning a few of his other articles, it seems that Charlie's
suggestion is to defend America's borders and nothing else. So, does
that mean he opposed the invasion of Afghanistan? I doubt that. So,
what does it mean? Apparently, it means that he wants to draw the line
as tight to America as possible. Essentially, this sounds like the health
care debate. One extreme wants zero government involvement in health
care; the other extreme wants a purely governmental system. Personally,
I want as little Gov. as I can get, which is where I'd presume Charlie and I
agree. On the other hand, I'm not particularly upset that our President
has decided to whomp the tar out of as many terrorists as he can and
attempt to establish new or "neo" pro-western states in that region. Less
terrorists and less terrorists supporting states seems like a plus to me. I
don't buy the we made them argument, because Muslims like the
Communists want to conquer the world. Muslims, unlike Christians really
do make converts by the sword. (I know I am generalizing, but
remember, the exception doesn't prove the rule) On the other hand, if
the state of Israel became a Palestinian state and the U.S. became
dependent on Nuclear Power instead of oil from the Middle East (like
France has), I wouldn't be too concerned about it. Although, I'd probably
quit following Halliburton's stock, but I wouldn't quit anticipating the
return of Christ.
 
Top