patrick.net

Yes or no?
Do we let them get the bomb or not?

Joe,

I know you mean well here, but since when is it *our job* to determine which of the approx. 192 sovereign nations on earth has the *right* to own/develop nuclear weapons? Are we the world's mother?

Now, do I want an islamo-fascist theocracy like Iran to have nukes? No, of course not, no one in the West does. But before I start entertaining fantasies about "pre-emptive strikes" with tactical nukes, or unilateral Gulf War III, I calm myself and consider the following facts:

--There are currently at least 8 other countries with nukes, not all of them friendly to the U.S.: Russia, North Korea, Red China, India and Pakistan, Israel, Britain and France. You can also add South Africa, which had them, then later agreed to destroy its arsenal under U.N./U.S. pressure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

--Each decade, as the technology to build nuclear weapons improves and becomes cheaper (as all mature technologies do), this list is bound to grow longer over time, and there's little you and I can do to stop it. The nuclear genie's already out of the bottle, my friend, for better or for worse.

--Odds are eventually some maniac is bound to get his hands on a nuke and use it somewhere. Invading or tactically nuking other countries trying to build them isn't likely to prevent this from happening. In fact this can backfire, by telling these countries in essence that the ONLY way to avoid being invaded/nuked by the U.S. is to HAVE nukes.

I don't think the approach to this problem is strictly binary (yes/no, Invade/don't invade). If South Africa developed nukes and was talked out of using them, then there's hope for diplomacy yet. There's also the little matter of M.A.D. working powerfully in our favor, as it did during the Cold War. Even the craziest mullah knows that his people would not survive a nuclear strike against the U.S. Doing so would be suicide.

Joe...
Please do travel outside of American, also when you get some time, read some history books... your YES or NO questions sounds like the TV show Deal - No Deal, where clueless bet on things and end up making $50 bucks instead of $250,000

If US wants to impose its rule on other countries, I am not surprised why other countries do not want to impose their rule on US. They also have ideologies that want them to oppress the woman in this country. What is wrong with that...
Bush has and will continue to be a puppet and he is trying to make the people of this country as part of his puppet show. No coconuts or bananas for him. He wants Oil.

Joe, why are you quoting Leon Trostky? Do you want a permanent revolution? ;)

What justifies the fact the US can have Nuclear weapons but no other country could. I am surprised why no country is willing to invade US to get rid of its Weapons of Mass Destruction.

North Korea’s rockets can probably reach SF. Bomb North Korea??
Yes or No?

:lol:

I know you mean well here, but since when is it *our job* to determine which of the approx. 192 sovereign nations on earth has the *right* to own/develop nuclear weapons? Are we the world’s mother?

Yes. Not becuase we want to be, becuase we have to be. The US, the British, the Israelis -- these countries can be trusted with nukes. Iran, etc. -- we can't trust them.

Each decade, as the technology to build nuclear weapons improves and becomes cheaper (as all mature technologies do), this list is bound to grow longer over time, and there’s little you and I can do to stop it. The nuclear genie’s already out of the bottle, my friend, for better or for worse.

That may be true, but we can delay it for a long, long time.

Odds are eventually some maniac is bound to get his hands on a nuke and use it somewhere. Invading or tactically nuking other countries trying to build them isn’t likely to prevent this from happening.

Well, an Islamic terrorist isn't going to get one of our nukes, they are secure. Pakistan's? Iran's? I feel a lot less safe just thinking about that.

In fact this can backfire, by telling these countries in essence that the ONLY way to avoid being invaded/nuked by the U.S. is to HAVE nukes.

Yes and no. On the one hand, even though they claim to hate and fear us, most of the world's nations know they have nothing to fear. Canada, Japan, Sweeden, Australia -- these countries aren't rushing to develop nukes, beucase they know we are not an imperial power, we do not invade and subjugate others for the fun of it.

Evil dictatorships like Iran, on the other hand -- they do have something to fear. Also, I might add that Iran's program began long before we invaded Iraq. Heck, Iraq's program was in the 80's, long before anyone ever dreamed that US troops would one day occcupy the mideast. These dictators want weapons becuase they are evil and want to threaten and intimidate, not becuase they are afraid of losing their soverignty to the US.

I don’t think the approach to this problem is strictly binary (yes/no, Invade/don’t invade). If South Africa developed nukes and was talked out of using them, then there’s hope for diplomacy yet. There’s also the little matter of M.A.D. working powerfully in our favor, as it did during the Cold War. Even the craziest mullah knows that his people would not survive a nuclear strike against the U.S. Doing so would be suicide.

You are right, this is a powerful deterrent. But the people there are very crazy. The Russians didn't fly passenger jets into buildings, send suicide bombers, etc. The "leaders" in the middle east, like Arafat and Osama, are far less stable. We can probably deter many of them, but the risks are infinitely greater.

What justifies the fact the US can have Nuclear weapons but no other country could.

Power gives you justification.

It is not necessarily right. But that is the reality.

I think we should make English the official language, but additional legislation should be enacted which requires everyone to talk like a surfer.

Tim, please do expediate Joe's travel plans to Iraq.
I would like to hear his views after a year.

Yes, Tim, I know that. I do not have to serve in the military to know what death and destruction are all about. I have several friends who are serving right now. And if one of them dies, I think their deaths will have been worth it. I pray every day that they will be safe, but I would not change a thing.

Isn’t it time to start a less controversial thread … on immigration, for instance?

How about another sushi thread instead?

Well, an Islamic terrorist isn’t going to get one of our nukes, they are secure. Pakistan’s? Iran’s? I feel a lot less safe just thinking about that.

I concur, and would also add hundreds of small "unnaccounted for" tactical Soviet-era nukes and North Korea to that list.

Joe, I don't want Iran or OBL to get nukes any more than you do. Our difference in opinion lies mainly in that I don't believe we can achieve security solely by invade/bombing anyone that might have or want nukes. Terrorist groups are also far more likely than soverign countries to actually USE a nuke against us. Terrorists have/respect no borders, so we really don't have much defense against them (Q: where's OBL these days? A: not in U.S. custody.).

Security itself is really just a comforting illusion, IMO, though perhaps I'm just cynical.

Newsfreak
How true, and you all know what I mean if I say I'm having a Surfer-X kind of day...

Exactly, Iran has both money and power in terms of Oil reserves. Isnt that justification enough for them to have Nuclear Weapons. They need to protect their assets from being invaded and they are touting Nuclear technology as a deterrent.

US has enough lunatics as any other country so Nuclear technology is not safe with anyone.

or a Peter P. kind of meal..... :)

Isn’t it time to start a less controversial thread … on immigration, for instance?

How about a thread on gay handicapped, welfare-cheating, illegal immigrant abortion doctors who hate Christmas and are legally brain dead?

HARM
Okay.
but only if we get a visual.

I'm all over it. ;-)

Newsfreak
....and only the worst language can truly describe it...

BTW, Tim, I will address your offer. I don't want to go to Iraq any more. I asked two different people to help me get a job there; one worked for DynCorp, another for another contractor. Both told me where to send my resume, but neither could help, because they were ex-military guys and the companies they worked for dealt with former military people, not lawyers.

I also went to see the National Guard recruiter. I made an appointment and went over to the armory in Glendale, but no one was there when I arrived. Someone then called me, and promised to call back, but never did. A couple months later someone finally did call but he didn't seem terribly interested. I don't know why.

Sure, I could keep trying, but I don't want to. Why? Beucase I have a family. Two kids, ages one and three. I feel that I have a duty to my kids. I

went to see the recruiter knowing about this duty. I felt very conflcited. On the one hand, I thoght it was my duty to volunteer. On the other hand, I have kids. I figured I would talk to the guy about it and see what he had to say, I just felt very conflicted.

Since my efforts didn't pan out, I feel like I dodged a bullet. I did the honorable thing, and if they had accepted my application I would have gone. But because they didn't, I feel fortunate and don't want to push my luck. I don't want my kids to grow up without a father.

My friends in the military all have kids, so I am still torn. I went to my freind's wedding a couple of years ago, and it was filled with kids. This was really haunting becuase their fathers were all in the military. Some of them were just back from Iraq. They are still serving, maybe I should too. But I have decided not to go, not unless I am asked.

And anyone wonders why I became markedly apolitical.

I have one simple question, and I ask it as a non-ideological question, simply a logical question:

Why would our current leadership (and by "our" I mean the coalition that went into Iraq, not just the US) purport to go to such extremes to create evidential justification for an invasion of Iraq on a timetable which discouraged meaningful diplomacy, yet in every case the same leaders of various nations are sparing no diplomatic option to prevent aggressive, decisive action against Iran? Maybe the leaders are not hypocritical, but the strategy is either hypocritical or flawed.

Yes, this is why I choose to disengage from the political process. Logic is irrelevant, and my questions are usually waved away with "well, those in power know things we don't, so be thankful they are looking after you". I seem to recall from sixth grade that democracies aren't supposed to work that way.

Ja,

I have disengaged from ze political process also. See all girly boys in Sacramento must listen to my common wisdom of ze people, ja.

I am your action hero baby!

DinOR,

Save us!

I'm glad this blog is able to host a conversation on this topic, discuss the meaty stuff without meaningless platitude, and still avoid a flame war.

@astrid,

Agreed. It's nice to see that it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

newsfreak,

I know exactly what you’re talking about. I can’t even listen to news radio or watch TV news anymore. I would have died from soap poisoning if I kept listening to public radio.

HARM,

I really liked your arguments and completely agree with them. Trying to write another sovereign people's destiny never ends well. The Chinese are still fuming at the Brits for what happened in the Boxer Rebellion.

Thanks, astrid.
Changing the subject, check out the new graphic I added to Surefer-X's "I don’t even know what to think" thread! :-)

Very nice. I'm gonna go dig for a picture of a tinfoil hat now :P

HARM
You're funny!
Hey, now that we have HARM-GRAPHIX...we should get that sountrack going!

I guess we could start talking about negotiation techniques on this thread.

Linda,

I heard a pretty good one for the sound track.

Soft Boys - Insanely Jealous

Well, I disagree, you America-hating traitors!

Seriously, while politics is an emotional subject for everyone, I think the really rabid partisanship is a hallmark of the Boomers.

I find most liberals my age to be very reasonable, with the exception of a few people who see themselves as oppressed minorities and a couple of this Cuban dude from Miami I knew who was just a right wing anti-communist madman. Ironically, his name was Ivan (he didn't see the irony in this.)

We wound up in a gay bar in the Village one time; we hadn't known it was that kind of place when we arrived, even though it literally was right next door to the Stonewall bar, the birthplace of the gay rights movement, but eventually we figured it out. I have never seen someone's spine stiffen as quickly as Ivan's did when we let him in on the secret. He got up from the table so fast that he lost his balance, and when this dude sitting at the next table (who was there with a woman who appeared to be his girlfriend) grabbed his arm to steady him, Ivan screamed "don't touch me!" in this high-ptiched voice and ran for the door.

But most younger people are far more reasonable about politics. We don't really have a stake in the culture wars of the 60's and are generally far more reasonable. Conservative Gen-X'ers don't hate minorities, liberal X'ers aren't America-hating hippies; it's all good with us. I think politics will be a lot more congenial once the Boomers finally exit the scene.

I am a selfish American citizen, and I don't give a f*ck who is suffering under what regime in other countries, if the regimes are corrupt and evil, and their people are ok with it, that's their business that I don't want to meddle with.

Now, I pay tax to the US to advance OUR interest as a nation, if you are telling me that by invading Iraq we will collectively get enough cheap oil that will last another 200 years, I am all for it. Or if Saddam Hussein is doing something that is jeopardizing my lifestyle in THIS country, then I am all for taking him out.

But Saddam Hussein torturing his own people, or the Chinese government abusing their own labor? oh well, shit happens, none of my business. Shogun-fuckin-nai.

LOL, somebody should put that into the definitions thread.

Added new graphic to "NAR: Speculation Accounts for 40% of 2005 Home Sales" thread.

Now, how about negotiations?

Randy H already outlined the target for a cheap home - long term homeowner with substantial equity cushion. But how to approach such an individual?

Do any of you ever cruise nice neighborhoods looking for a house you'd like to buy? Do you ever mentally think about the offer you'd make the owner when the time is right?

As for me, I'm curious about anyone's experience in buying foreclosed properties or knowledge about the workings of trust resolution corporations. I think there's a potential for a whole gush of liquidated property at some point in the future when there will be very few buyers, that seems like the best place to pick up a large number of bargain rental properties.

Anyone like this idea? Anyone think it's completely idiotic? Please tell!

HARM
You are on a roll today!
Did you guys see this funny, narrated, condo thingy?

http://www.capitalstool.coms/index.php?showtopic=7644

@Linda,

Yeah someone on Mish's or ben's blog posted the link a while back --pretty hilarious. Hat's off to "Joe Stool" for writing it.

Just added a graphic to Surfer-X's "?????" thread. I think you'll all agree it's very 'X'! :P

Very nice!