filc:Calling them stupid and name calling people as "assbageryous" would provoke them would it not? It's sad because it is only your opinion that is in conflict with their logic.
Calling someone a 'statist' because they dare say a pure anarcho capitalist solution might not fly in the world at large is stupid.
filc:You made an argument that LS believes there are no vengeful people in the world. In doing so I think you missed his point.
Quite the contrary. I said if he wanted to maintain his ideological purity he was welcome to it. I would rather survive if it came down to that on this particular question.
filc: At least your honest. I'd prefer not to have my tax dollars pay for someone else's blood feud though. I think you'd agree to that.
Now you're on the same bandwagon? Let's go over the points I have made so far:
Yet I am repeatedly asked why I want to not only keep troops there but escalate hostilities, bomb the populace, and hit them with sanctions... What haven't I made clear here? Is a policy of using the state to murder individuals who may be a threat ideal? No. Compared to carpet bombing cities of innocent civilians while the actual individuals who pose a threat survive and even prosper, I consider it a bit better of a compromise. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a statist...
filc:The only problem is it's not politically feasible. Primarily because people still hold true to the ideology you espouse. It is entirely more efficient in all ways accept politically to leave now.
Which to turn your favorite debating tactic on you is the exact argument socialists use. The political system and the government would work great if it weren't for all the politics... So congratulations, you've pointed out what I've been saying for the last 70 posts or so, that I am advocating a policy that at leaast has a snow ball's chance in hell relative to yours, and which if adopted would at least get us closer to the ideal of nonintervention.
filc: Everday we stay there is a day we are violating their sovereignty and property. Everyday we are there we squelcnh more capital and taxpayer dollars. Every day we are there more american's die. How many more american's need to die? How many more american's have died passed the deathcount of 9/11? I see lots wrong with it.
I see lots wrong with it.
So do I, but to return to a point I brought up which you all conveniently ignored, why are marginal choices okay in the market but here we must decide categorically? Sure, in the ideal sense there's no difference between killing one person vs one hundred or one million in the pursuance of such policy, but to claim there is no difference in practical impact between those three options is an act of lunacy.
filc:you are using alot of nationalist rhetoric to defend your case.
Oooo. Nationalist rhetoric. May be so, but I also know a line of shit and a nutjob when I see one, and DinnerJacket seems a few fries short of a happy meal. Perhaps that assessment is in agreement with nationalist rhetoric or not, I don't care. What I care about is a fruitcake with possible nuclear aspirations. And it's well to keep in mind that just because a government's policies aren't tested for profit and loss, while that does mean they'll destroy wealth over time, it doesn't mean they do so in every single individual instance. The goverenment can get it right sometimes, it's just not the tendency over time.
filc:Making such statements, especially on these forums, is an inventation to harsh criticism.
Then show why it is not necessarily the case. In doing so you make the same mistake socialists made with the incentive problem, and you ignore a huge and obvious tendency on the part of mankind toward central authority. To argue against the fact that the government is there, has been in one form or another for as long as most can remember, and that many if not most people seem to want it there to some degree, is ridiculous.
filc:Perhaps you should employ that logic and start lobbying for a safer road system?
You presume I am not already doing so. Quite the contrary. On the issues of the drug war and road building specifically I've been very active, mostly in my college days but still to this day.
filc:If people truely wanted institutionalized services they would develop them so without the use of coersion.
Are you really this dellusional? You honestly think everyone feels this is being forced upon them? If these institutionalized services were not the product of man then they should have pre dated man in their existence, which is insane. Indeed, some portions of government are forced on some by others. But even those who have aspects of control forced upon them have things they believe should be forced upon others, and they in fact do so. The truth is most people willingly engage in the act of institutionalized looting and killing called government. Now I understand that doesn't make the statement about human nature needed for anarcho capitalism to exist one day, none the less it seems to be true.
Sure I can. I just don't care because unlike you I do not live in a nonviolent utopia where my adherence to peace makes others throw down their weapons in shame and take up basket weaving. Violence is a fact of life, and it will be so long as humans exist I woudl wager. I want it minimized. If I thought there were a chance in hell of getting rid of it I'd gladly take the high road. But I don't, so I don't. I have no problem compromising my ideals to come up with practical solutions to problems which: one, might actually sell to people in this world who don't share my ideals; two, at least move us closer to those ideals rather than further away. Now here in the real world, state leaders can be a threat to citizens of the US. Rather than the US using its military to bomb the citizens of another country into desperate radicalism, I suggest keeping our troops at bay and, if ever there is a threat, focussing on the individual(s) who truly comprise the threat. DinnerJacket being one of the likely ones in this case.
Part of why I, personally, can't take you seriously is calling Ahmadinejad Dinner Jacket. I had to google that to even figure out who you were talking about before. I think this type of thing just makes people sound dumb... like calling people teabaggers and they don't know what that is slang for... I'm not a Tea Partier but hearing that does make me want to teabag the person.
For a serious response though: Iran has made it quite clear that they want nuclear weapons. Forget the real argument that nobody at all is justified in owning nuclear devices. Why is Iran "less of a country" than the US? What defines terror? Why is the US military not considered terrorists? A viable rationale might be stated intentions, but more important is a history of actions. The US has no standing to question another states possession of nukes, being the largest terrorist murderer with nukes in history; therefore I refuse to support the US military in anything it does, even if somehow its policy changed and it was, somehow, going to assassinate Ahmadinejad, versus all the sanctions and threat of large scale war.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
wilderness:1 - Are you concerned about nuclear weapons in general?
A bit. With most western leaders, no. I don't even think North Korea would be a threat. The middle east, yes. Maybe if McCain made it to the presidency then I'd be concerned because he's crazier than a shit house rat.
wilderness:2 - Are you only concerned about nuclear weapons in the hands of somebody you assume might use them?
I am concerned about nuclear weapons in the hands of someone who might use them against me.
wilderness:3 - The significant point is Obama is only in office most likely for a limited term. So here's a government that could vote in anybody into office, ie. as hitler was voted in keep that in mind, and you only had eight words to comment upon the u.s. government and nukes. Yet you go on and on about Iran. I'm beginning to assume some things about you so please answer these questions and comment on this.
Because I find the likelihood that the US will use nukes on anyone, and in particular me, low, despite past actions. Nuking other nations is at least not to date something like child molestation where you can say there's a high a rate of recidivism. Get McCain in office, I will worry. The only reason I say pull out in phases rather than right away is that the majority of the world is concerned with things other than maintaining anarcho capitalist, non interventionist purity.
E. R. Olovetto: For a serious response though: Iran has made it quite clear that they want nuclear weapons.
For a serious response though: Iran has made it quite clear that they want nuclear weapons.
Tukaram:I see what you are saying and in a pragmatic way you are right. But pragmatism doesn't always work. There is a problem in a lot of issues with trying to go in little steps. Using the current health care crap as an example: What we have right now is screwed up. We have either too many regulations, or not enough, depending on your viewpoint. If we take some of the crippling regulations off the insurance companies the free market should work the problems out. If we go to an all gov't run system they might be able to get it running ok. But by all the compromising over the years we simply have a huge mess. Neither side is really happy with it, and the consumers, insurance companies, and health care professions are not being served as well as they could.
True, but who has been doing the compromising? Two statist parties who don't question the underlying fundamentals, which is why the healthcare debate in the mainstream right now is around what to do and how to do it, as opposed to what are we already doing and how do we undo it. And most people buy into that with healthcare. With foreign relations however, people are much more apt to buy into the idea that we've made our own bed and the underlying answer is to pull out. With healthcare, since most people seem to consider any market 'free' despite existing regulations, I support the socialists. It may be counter intuitive, but the more burden that's put on our system, the quicker it will collapse. Which is why I also support the upcoming banking regs. The more people who view themselves as victims of the state as opposed to state benificiaries, the more they'll be inclined to think the unthinkable and actually give the idea of dealing with each other as free adults a chance. Victimize the bankers. They've been using the state to whip people enough over time, no one will really mind them getting the bad end of the stick. And one way to win the war is to encourage the parasitic class to make itself unsustainable as they would anyway, but do it in such a way that their collapse comes when we still have a political system which 'works' somewhat so whatever revolution may occur, it doesn't have to be bloody.
Tukaram:Perhaps a more 'real world' approach to politics and economics would be to make some sweeping changes and get it done. The long, painful, compromising way doesn't seem very effective so far. If that makes them look like pie in the sky idealist, well maybe they are. But I like their views a lot better than anything we've ever had.
What environment do you think would be conducive to such sweeping changes though? Certainly not one in which the parasitic class is still seen as roughly contained and not much of a burden. Plus, as I asked before, who is doing the compromising? If you're deciding on dinner between three people and the two who want fast food are the only ones in the debate compromising, you're gonna end up with Wendy's or McDonalds. You need someone in the debate who wants some high class dining but who is also willing to dumb it down a bit before you even have a hope of getting to a decent chain, much less occasionally a four star restaurant.
E. R. Olovetto: Part of why I, personally, can't take you seriously is calling Ahmadinejad Dinner Jacket. I had to google that to even figure out who you were talking about before. I think this type of thing just makes people sound dumb... like calling people teabaggers and they don't know what that is slang for... I'm not a Tea Partier but hearing that does make me want to teabag the person.
Your opinion. I'm all for derrision when it's deserved. DinnerJacket is a moron, he deserves no respect. I sometimes call John McCain John McNutjob too where I think it will piss people off. Because he deserves it, the guy is a lunatic.
E. R. Olovetto:Why is Iran "less of a country" than the US?
I never said it was. Ahmadinejad is less of a sane person than average though I'd wager. Iran with nukes doesn't concern me. Iran with nukes and people like him in power does. Just like Russia with nukes doesn't concern me, nor does China, etc. My concern is certifiable nut jobs getting their hands on nukes. One way is through the black market, the other way is through politics. There are crazy people in this world. Sometimes they have knives, sometimes they have guns, sometimes they have nations and armies.
E. R. Olovetto:What defines terror?
What does terror have to do with this? The issue is simple: crazy person + nuclear weapons = bad situation.
E. R. Olovetto:Why is the US military not considered terrorists?
They are by some. Quite a few actually, which is why I, once more and I don't see how you could have missed this by this point, want a total end to hostile actions on the part of US troops and a phased draw down of our troops until there are finally none left in foreign countries. It's only in the world of anarcho capitalist utopianism that this is considered 'statist' or somehow in line with current policies.
E. R. Olovetto:The US has no standing to question another states possession of nukes, being the largest terrorist murderer with nukes in history; therefore I refuse to support the US military in anything it does, even if somehow its policy changed and it was, somehow, going to assassinate Ahmadinejad, versus all the sanctions and threat of large scale war.
I disagree. I say no one is at the top of the moral heap, and as such being closest to the top can give you some leverage. Therefore if we do leave these countries and we do have a non interventionist policy, and Iran as a country gets nukes and some dipstick at the top of their power structure decides he doesn't like the US and might want to melt a city or two, I say murder his ass. If they feel the same threat from us, feel free to kill our 'leaders'. It's only when their asses are personally on the line that we'll get some common sense policies anyway.
Marko: E. R. Olovetto: For a serious response though: Iran has made it quite clear that they want nuclear weapons. When? How? Can you substantiate? I bet you you can`t.
source
The dispute between Iran and the West on the nuclear issue can be summed up by the answer to one main question: When Iran says that it's interested in developing nuclear capacity, what does it mean?Ali Larijani, the new secretary of the "Supreme Council for National Security" in Iran, went to a lot of trouble this week to convince the western press that Iran's intension is to gain nuclear capacity for peaceful use only. At the same time, his own brother, Mohammed Javad Larijani, who is also the head of the Physics Research Center in Iran, told an Iranian audience a completely different story.During a speech he made at a conference on "Nuclear Technology and the Iranian people's will" on August 1st, Mohammed Javad Larijani told his audience that "It is our right to have nuclear defense and we will not be ready to give up this right..." and that "Iran's dispute with the West should have been over nuclear weapon production rather than over the nuclear fuel cycle...."But doesn't it contradict Khamenei's famous Fatwa, which supposedly religiously forbid the non-peaceful use of nuclear technology? Well, trust Mohammed Javad Larijani to sort things out. According to his speech "When we say that the legislator tied our hands regarding the use of nuclear weapons, he means only that we are not to make the first nuclear strike..."
There is a reason for them to claim peaceful purposes and covertly develop weapons.
Again, I don't think that anyone has a right to own nukes basically. The US is hypocritical for trying to stop anyone from doing so though, within their own prescribed framework.
X, I don't have time for this now. What qualifies you to say so and so is crazy, thus making them a threat?
Spideynw:Correct. Fear requires a government to station troops all around the world, and then to bring them home slowly. Self defense just requires allowing people to own guns.
Back to reality: our troops being stationed abroad has lead to a state of affairs that would have otherwise not existed. Pulling out immediately would in some cases lead to problems that the US would be blamed for, just as we are rightlfully blamed for the problems we've caused. My approach says try and identify those areas and, while we're leaving, try and reach some peaceful agreement before we leave. If no peace is acceptable, make sure all people have the ability to defend themselves with guns, and then leave. If that's not doable, finally just leave and let the situation go to hell and deal with any consequences should they come the way of the US down the line. To pretend simply pulling our troops out would have no negative consequences for the US is to bury your head in the sand.
Cabal: I think their primary purpose as of now is for protection, defense and posturing. Admittedly this is always subject to change
Generally I would agree. However more than a couple of times now people from the middle east in general have demonstrated a certain To Hell With It attitude let's say. Everyone has their share of nutters, but how many westerners are running into discos and exploding, or flying planes into buildings, or insisting women wear tarps in public?
Tukaram:Actually we have had some interesting discussions at work along these lines. A lot of the guys at work say they trust themselves enough for self government but it's all the others you can't trust, so you need a government. So... you don't trust individuals... but you think a group of individuals you don't trust would somehow elect a group you do trust... fear is a wonderful thing isn't it?
Whatever you call it, it's operative and a part of human nature. Busting each other's chops seems to be hard wired to a greater or lesser degree into all of us.
K.C. Farmer:You either follow logic and reasoning or you do not.
Incorrect. But definitely the usual line handed out by people who have decided all their premises are the only possible correct ones. Logic may work for you, Spock, but the majority of the human race also has emotions and imperfect information to deal with.
K.C. Farmer:Making libertarianism so that it's more attractive for Republicans or Democrats doesn't help even if you obtain a little ground. And if you're an Anarcho-Capitalist, you've essentially abandoned not only your economic principles, but reason itself. A little death is death nonetheless.
Says the graduate student. Once you realize that every time you go to the supermarket you've 'compromised' because you've used government roads, you start to take a more realistic view of life.
liberty student:It was poorly written. My point is, you can't change the government, to make the people better, or make the people ancaps. If you took away the government today, there would be one tomorrow. People want government. People want a military. They like being able to vote on the redistribution of their neighbor's property. They worship their politicians. Even if they get short changed, they believe government is better than no government. The only way to change that paradigm, is to prove to them, convince them, market to them, lead them, to the conclusion that government is not in their best interest, ,and then things will change.
The only way to change that paradigm, is to prove to them, convince them, market to them, lead them, to the conclusion that government is not in their best interest, ,and then things will change.
Very good! Now please explain how you attempt such a marketing campaign with few to no actual products to sell?
If you're selling vacuums and someone insists on using their old model but you know yours is better, are you going to say, "Ditch it and buy mine or nothing else, that's your option," or might you try a more tactical approach and say, "Give me the den, keep using your old one in the iving room, and let's see which is better?" My guess is the second approach will, in the end, get you more sales. But you have to be willing to, God forbid!, compromise initially to show the superior performance of your product in an admittedly limited condition.
E. R. Olovetto:X, I don't have time for this now. What qualifies you to say so and so is crazy, thus making them a threat?
What qualifies anyone? Should I have him on a therapist's couch for a while first? I spend a good portion of my time working on visas for foreign workers, I have more than a few relatives abroad, my company does business worldwide and Ii'm often in contact with the overseas people. Every one of them, especially those from the middle east, thinks DinnerJack's brain leaked out of his head years ago.
xahrx: K.C. Farmer:You either follow logic and reasoning or you do not. Incorrect. But definitely the usual line handed out by people who have decided all their premises are the only possible correct ones. Logic may work for you, Spock, but the majority of the human race also has emotions and imperfect information to deal with.
Even with emotions and imperfect information, your choice is to use logic and reasoning or not to use logic and reasoning. If you choose not to use logic and reasoning, don't try to justify your position from a stand point of logic and reasoning.
From you posts, I infer that you think it's acceptable to react emotionally based on imperfect information. While I don't disagree that many people may think this way, possibly even a majority as you suggest, it doesn't justify the action.
Poor use of the fictional Spock in your ad hominem. He had emotions as he was half human, half Vulcan. He chose to act logically, most of the time. But then Star Trek also had some positions that were very non-libertarian.
xahrx: K.C. Farmer:Making libertarianism so that it's more attractive for Republicans or Democrats doesn't help even if you obtain a little ground. And if you're an Anarcho-Capitalist, you've essentially abandoned not only your economic principles, but reason itself. A little death is death nonetheless. Says the graduate student. Once you realize that every time you go to the supermarket you've 'compromised' because you've used government roads, you start to take a more realistic view of life.
Big difference between abandoning your principles and living in State-occupied territory. I have a choice in diluting my political affiliations to attract others for potential political gain (although I question whether there even is political gain to be had by doing that). I have no choice in living under the oppression of a state.
I am not a graduate student, so that ad hominem also fell short of the mark.
xahrx: E. R. Olovetto:X, I don't have time for this now. What qualifies you to say so and so is crazy, thus making them a threat? What qualifies anyone? Should I have him on a therapist's couch for a while first? I spend a good portion of my time working on visas for foreign workers, I have more than a few relatives abroad, my company does business worldwide and Ii'm often in contact with the overseas people. Every one of them, especially those from the middle east, thinks DinnerJack's brain leaked out of his head years ago.
Appeals to public opinion are not valid.
You say it is "practical" as a means toward your own self interest to advocate that your rulers murder Ahmadinejad, because [he is a threat/crazy/whatever it is you are saying].
Pretend that I have put on my magic "rational statist hat" for a moment and we are talking about conventional international law. On what basis is one country allowed to own nukes for self-defense and another not?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
xahrx: wilderness:1 - Are you concerned about nuclear weapons in general? A bit. With most western leaders, no. I don't even think North Korea would be a threat. The middle east, yes. Maybe if McCain made it to the presidency then I'd be concerned because he's crazier than a shit house rat.
anybody can be president, even a mccain. that is THE threat. you never know who's going to jump out of that cake. 'surprise!!'
xahrx: wilderness:3 - The significant point is Obama is only in office most likely for a limited term. So here's a government that could vote in anybody into office, ie. as hitler was voted in keep that in mind, and you only had eight words to comment upon the u.s. government and nukes. Yet you go on and on about Iran. I'm beginning to assume some things about you so please answer these questions and comment on this. Because I find the likelihood that the US will use nukes on anyone, and in particular me, low, despite past actions. Nuking other nations is at least not to date something like child molestation where you can say there's a high a rate of recidivism. Get McCain in office, I will worry. The only reason I say pull out in phases rather than right away is that the majority of the world is concerned with things other than maintaining anarcho capitalist, non interventionist purity.
McCain is a light-weight. I'm surprised you're that concerned about him. There's been far worse and the predators circle in D.C. all the time.
--
basically this is all about how you feel. you're scared. yeah, fear does make nightmares.
E. R. Olovetto: There is a reason for them to claim peaceful purposes and covertly develop weapons. Again, I don't think that anyone has a right to own nukes basically. The US is hypocritical for trying to stop anyone from doing so though, within their own prescribed framework.
xahrx: Generally I would agree. However more than a couple of times now people from the middle east in general have demonstrated a certain To Hell With It attitude let's say. Everyone has their share of nutters, but how many westerners are running into discos and exploding, or flying planes into buildings, or insisting women wear tarps in public?
There aren't any Iranians running into discos and exploding or flying planes into buildings. But of course they're all the same subhuman brown people so who cares.
How many middle easterners are dropping huge payloads on villages killing men women and children, or traveling thousands of miles to bust into people's houses and taking them away for permanent imprisonment and torture...then after all that being big enough jerks to tell you its for your own good?
I don't see how the last point about forcing women to wear certain clothes makes them more of a NUCLEAR THREAT. You have to be joking.
Juan:So Mr xaxhr4) never managed to explain why the iranian government, which has zero nukes, should be 'stopped,' while, say, the american government which has thousands of nukes, should be left alone.
Oh he explained that one. He said he was a crybaby and terrified of the big bad Ahmedinedzad. The mere sight of that giant of a man (5 foot 6) is enough to make this hawk (or should we say vulture?) have to sleep with the lights on all until the US military is sent to check under his bed for monsters.Apparently being a pathetic coward means you can do whatever you want.
xahrx: Spideynw:Correct. Fear requires a government to station troops all around the world, and then to bring them home slowly. Self defense just requires allowing people to own guns. Back to reality: our troops being stationed abroad has lead to a state of affairs that would have otherwise not existed. Pulling out immediately would in some cases lead to problems
Back to reality: our troops being stationed abroad has lead to a state of affairs that would have otherwise not existed. Pulling out immediately would in some cases lead to problems
Conjecture.
xahrx:that the US would be blamed for,
Fear-mongering.
xahrx:To pretend simply pulling our troops out would have no negative consequences for the US is to bury your head in the sand.
Opinion, not fact.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
xahrx: What qualifies anyone? Should I have him on a therapist's couch for a while first? I spend a good portion of my time working on visas for foreign workers, I have more than a few relatives abroad, my company does business worldwide and Ii'm often in contact with the overseas people. Every one of them, especially those from the middle east, thinks DinnerJack's brain leaked out of his head years ago.
Since we're going to mention personal experience- I know plenty of relatives, friends, and business associates around the world that think US politicians are some of the worst liars there could ever be in terms of foreign policy- and they've felt this way for decades. Then again they think that all politcians are scum- but the United States is above and beyond the most dangerous with the kind of weapons that they possess- and their ability to invade and bomb anywhere they want in the world without fear of repurcussion(and if anyone DARES retialite, we'll spend 10 trillion dollars to kill even more of you ungrateful 3rd worlders)
auctionguy10: Since we're going to mention personal experience- I know plenty of relatives, friends, and business associates around the world that think US politicians are some of the worst liars there could ever be in terms of foreign policy- and they've felt this way for decades. Then again they think that all politcians are scum- but the United States is above and beyond the most dangerous with the kind of weapons that they possess- and their ability to invade and bomb anywhere they want in the world without fear of repurcussion(and if anyone DARES retialite, we'll spend 10 trillion dollars to kill even more of you ungrateful 3rd worlders)
This post needs to be contemplated. Pondered. Mulled in the mind again like a good wine - swish it back and forth, back and forth. And then repeat.
good post. (many other good posts too in this thread by various other people).
K.C. Farmer:Even with emotions and imperfect information, your choice is to use logic and reasoning or not to use logic and reasoning. If you choose not to use logic and reasoning, don't try to justify your position from a stand point of logic and reasoning.
Insisting on one and only one possible approach out of many when there are a myriad of people in the world with varying degrees of disagreement with your principles is not logic, it is misanthropy. Which I'm all in favor of so long as it's admitted and not hidden behind a cloak of 'reason'.
K.C. Farmer:Big difference between abandoning your principles and living in State-occupied territory. I have a choice in diluting my political affiliations to attract others for potential political gain (although I question whether there even is political gain to be had by doing that). I have no choice in living under the oppression of a state.
Bullshit. If you wanted to you could get your own little anarcho capitalist paradise going somewhere. You choose not to because the cost is too high. Just like you choose to drive on government roads because flying in unsubsidized food using an all private air service that deliberately tries to avoid dealing with the government air traffic control rules simply to satisfy principle is ridiculously high cost for little return. You have not shown a difference, you've offerred an excuse for your compromises, nothing more. Either live by your own standards of purity or admit others with similar ideals may have differring priorities and degrees to which they are willing to compromise.
Marko: E. R. Olovetto: There is a reason for them to claim peaceful purposes and covertly develop weapons. Again, I don't think that anyone has a right to own nukes basically. The US is hypocritical for trying to stop anyone from doing so though, within their own prescribed framework. Indeed. They would have good reason to want to develop them. But just because it makes sense for them to do so (from one point of view, from another point of view it would be sucidal) that does not mean that there is any evidence that they are. There is absolutely no evidence that that is true, or that they are in breach of the NPT. The quote you brought forth I did not know of beforehand, but if accurate it only means that certain Mohammed Javad Larijani wants Iran to develop them. It does not prove anything else.
Considering that Larijani is the head of their "Physics Research Center in Iran" and his brother is the head of the "Supreme Council for National Security", these are people who administer specifically related parts of the Iranian government.
There is more to read in that link, and I saw other sources around that seem to back this up. I'm not spending more time on this though.
Inspectors who examined the plutonium concluded, judging from the amounts found, that the Iranians must have started creating the plutonium in the mid-1990s and not three years ago. [...] Some of the evidence of Iran's secret activities was mentioned in the IAEA's interim reports in recent months. The most suspicious item is a document found in Iranian possession that includes technical details about casting enriched and depleted uranium into hemispheres. This casting process is associated specifically with nuclear weapons production, as stated in the IAEA interim report of February 27. The report added that that existence of the document is disturbing. According to experts, the document is unequivocal proof that Iran's nuclear project is involved in weapons production. When asked by IAEA inspectors about the document, the Iranians declared that it had come from Pakistan but that they had never used it. The source of the document, as well as the centrifuges that Iran uses to enrich uranium, is apparently the network established by Pakistani nuclear arms pioneer Abdul Khader Khan, who admitted to assisting a number of Islamic countries with their nuclear programs. Iran repeatedly refused to give the document, or a copy of it, to the IAEA.
Inspectors who examined the plutonium concluded, judging from the amounts found, that the Iranians must have started creating the plutonium in the mid-1990s and not three years ago. [...]
Some of the evidence of Iran's secret activities was mentioned in the IAEA's interim reports in recent months. The most suspicious item is a document found in Iranian possession that includes technical details about casting enriched and depleted uranium into hemispheres. This casting process is associated specifically with nuclear weapons production, as stated in the IAEA interim report of February 27. The report added that that existence of the document is disturbing.
According to experts, the document is unequivocal proof that Iran's nuclear project is involved in weapons production.
When asked by IAEA inspectors about the document, the Iranians declared that it had come from Pakistan but that they had never used it. The source of the document, as well as the centrifuges that Iran uses to enrich uranium, is apparently the network established by Pakistani nuclear arms pioneer Abdul Khader Khan, who admitted to assisting a number of Islamic countries with their nuclear programs.
Iran repeatedly refused to give the document, or a copy of it, to the IAEA.
E. R. Olovetto:Appeals to public opinion are not valid.
Fine, let me know when your psychoanalysis of him is done and you have something else to go on.
E. R. Olovetto:You say it is "practical" as a means toward your own self interest to advocate that your rulers murder Ahmadinejad, because [he is a threat/crazy/whatever it is you are saying]. Pretend that I have put on my magic "rational statist hat" for a moment and we are talking about conventional international law. On what basis is one country allowed to own nukes for self-defense and another not?
On whatever basis the stronger country decides. I again find it funny that in such a group of radical anarchists such appeals are made to the UN and to international law.
xahrx: K.C. Farmer:Even with emotions and imperfect information, your choice is to use logic and reasoning or not to use logic and reasoning. If you choose not to use logic and reasoning, don't try to justify your position from a stand point of logic and reasoning. Insisting on one and only one possible approach out of many when there are a myriad of people in the world with varying degrees of disagreement with your principles is not logic, it is misanthropy. Which I'm all in favor of so long as it's admitted and not hidden behind a cloak of 'reason'. K.C. Farmer:Big difference between abandoning your principles and living in State-occupied territory. I have a choice in diluting my political affiliations to attract others for potential political gain (although I question whether there even is political gain to be had by doing that). I have no choice in living under the oppression of a state. Bullshit. If you wanted to you could get your own little anarcho capitalist paradise going somewhere. You choose not to because the cost is too high. Just like you choose to drive on government roads because flying in unsubsidized food using an all private air service that deliberately tries to avoid dealing with the government air traffic control rules simply to satisfy principle is ridiculously high cost for little return. You have not shown a difference, you've offerred an excuse for your compromises, nothing more. Either live by your own standards of purity or admit others with similar ideals may have differring priorities and degrees to which they are willing to compromise.
There's not a thing wrong with participating in statist society as a matter of self-defense. States claim sovereignty over Earth's entire land mass and even the moon. What's important is intentions.
The difference between you and I is that you are willing to compromise on your supposed morals, because you think this will bring about change. I really don't care what you think or do, but I think your approach lends legitimacy to and helps perpetuate state mythology.
xahrx: E. R. Olovetto:Appeals to public opinion are not valid. Fine, let me know when your psychoanalysis of him is done and you have something else to go on. E. R. Olovetto:You say it is "practical" as a means toward your own self interest to advocate that your rulers murder Ahmadinejad, because [he is a threat/crazy/whatever it is you are saying]. Pretend that I have put on my magic "rational statist hat" for a moment and we are talking about conventional international law. On what basis is one country allowed to own nukes for self-defense and another not? On whatever basis the stronger country decides. I again find it funny that in such a group of radical anarchists such appeals are made to the UN and to international law.
1. I didn't claim anyone was crazy. You did. You claimed that your assessment of craziness (along with the appeal to public opinion) justified supporting murder.
2. Might makes right? You seem to agree on my actual argument, nobody is justified to own nuclear weapons, but it isn't "practical" enough for you. More practical is murder. I was ratcheting down my argument to your inconsistent/flawed level, not appealing to UN legitimacy. I think it should be quite obvious that I said nothing about the UN and find it a purely criminal organization itself.
I am asking you your justification, in terms of traditionally accepted ius inter gentes (international law), not libertarian law, for your inconsistent position.
Juan:So Mr xaxhr1) is a broken record.2) claims to be a libertarian but is not3) seems to be obsessed with the evil 'iranian leadership' and forgets about the fully deranged and criminal governmemnt and military of 'his' country.4) never managed to explain why the iranian government, which has zero nukes, should be 'stopped,' while, say, the american government which has thousands of nukes, should be left alone.
1) If people would not ignore points they would not need repeating. Since I have not advocated keeping troops at current levels and killing tons of civilians accusing me of such positions out of your own ideological blindness forces me to repeat basics about my positions you seem to either have to ignore to make a point, or simply can't see because you're too wound up in your ideological paradise world to confront the real world.
2) Never claimed to be a libertarian, lower or upper case "L," though I guess you could get that by implication. If I have directly stated so, my mistake. I have stated I share the same ideal of a purely voluntary society. My rejection of labels such as anarcho capitalist and/or (L)libertarian are specifically because I can't stand how either group deals with the realities of political process, which is to ignore them in favor of maintaining a completely ineffective idealistically pure position that, while maybe allowing better sleep at night, does jack shit to stop this world from marching ever more towards totalitarian ruin.
3) Reference number one. Advocating an end to US military hostilities is not forgetting about my own government. How does one forget about one's own government and its military when the policy in question directly relates to that subject and calls for a fundamental change in current policy aimed at eventual nonintervention? Translation: you simply don't like the policy. You're like a chef diagreeing with a recipe for fish and saying the other chef knows nothing about fish. Bullshit, he's just doing something you don't like or agree with. Many responses exist to that situation, yours is remedial, uninformative, ill conceived, poorly thought out, amateurish, and unrealistic. I have repeatedly said I am worried about both Iran and my own government. However your own philosophy works against you here; all governments are a threat, not just the one you live under. And when those governments make it clear that they intend to fight each other in actuality by punishing their citizens, I find those that take a position opposed to the government I happen to live under more of a threat. You are either incapable of understanding that or unwilling to admit it is possible.
4) Direct lie. I have said quite clearly I feel the threat from the US government, especially to me, vis a vi nukes, is nothing compared to the threat DinnerJacket in Iran poses. The the US has used nukes before in the past and on foreign soil is not necessarily relevant to what the US government would do to its own citizens on its own soil with nukes. The threat the US military poses to me is in them executing current policy and pissing off foreigners en masse, which I have said several times I support stopping. I just disagree on the timeline and nature of the ultimate pull out everyone here seems to agree is the best option.
So you are either illiterate or being deliberately obtuse. Which is it?
wilderness:anybody can be president, even a mccain. that is THE threat. you never know who's going to jump out of that cake. 'surprise!!'
No, but I think I can be reasonably sure the US president will not decide to bomb NY any time soon, regardless of who it is. I don't think even McCain/Palin would have been that batshit. Iranian leaders on the other hand might, and if not I don't see it as impossible that some people in that government would have no moral qualms in 'sponsoring' someone like UBL, who might be happy to find some disaffected middle eastern youth, promise him T&A in the afterlife, and convince him to walk into my home town with a nulcear present on his back. I support: stopping US military hostility and withdrawing from the middle eastern region which will lead to fewer such youths out there to recruit; and, holding individuals responsible for attacks on the US where appropriate and killing them if necessary.
wilderness:McCain is a light-weight. I'm surprised you're that concerned about him. There's been far worse and the predators circle in D.C. all the time.
I've met him. I wouldn't trust him to deep fry a chicken without starting a war over it or over doing the needed heat to get it done. I've actually met more than a few of the freaks in DC thanks to my father's involvment in politics and my subsequent activist years. Bob Barr for example, was reasonable. Certainly not a libertarian, but more concerned with individual liberty than your typical DC dipstick. Charles Schumer would legalize pot tomorrow if he didn't think it would cost him votes. Never met Dole, would have liked to.
wilderness:basically this is all about how you feel. you're scared. yeah, fear does make nightmares.
Ad Metuis, the fallacy of blaming all opposing positions on fear because you'd rather not deal with their nicer points, including practical applicability and possibility of actually happening in the real world. I could just as easily accuse you of fearing the real world political process and the test of your ideals it would engender as what causes you to stick to your 'pure' position. I'm polite enough to acknowledge that it's a valid position at least. What's clear from thsi exchange though is that you guys can't even acknowledge when someone agrees with you in ideals but differs in practical application and where and when, if at all, to make compromises. That being the case, how the hell do you ever expect to change anything in this world when you would even take those who would be your allies in the real political arena and throw them under the bus?
The the US has used nukes before in the past and on foreign soil is not necessarily relevant to what the US government would do to its own citizens on its own soil with nukes.
So you are either illiterate or being deliberately obtuse.
auctionguy10:There aren't any Iranians running into discos and exploding or flying planes into buildings. But of course they're all the same subhuman brown people so who cares.
Once more we have a moronic reply. No, the Iranians generally don't tend to do that. However there is somewhat of a divide between the Iranian people and THEIR GOVERNMENT, specifically the people at the top who tend to be more radical. If the people of Iran were the issue, there would be no issue. I could give a shit less if they had a reasonably representative democracy and had nukes. The problem is those at the top are not of a piece with the people they rule, and might not be against developing nukes and 'losing' one or two, said nukes ending up in the hands of those who would willingly explode in a disco.
But hey, thanks for the attempt at painting me as a racist. Take your cues from CNN or directly from Obama's supporters?
auctionguy10:How many middle easterners are dropping huge payloads on villages killing men women and children, or traveling thousands of miles to bust into people's houses and taking them away for permanent imprisonment and torture...then after all that being big enough jerks to tell you its for your own good?
Again, and for the hard of sight on this board, I DO NOT SUPPORT THOSE FUCKING POLICIES SO WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF CONSTANTLY REFERRING TO THEM AS IF I DO?
How pathetically and ideologically blinded are you people?
auctionguy10:I don't see how the last point about forcing women to wear certain clothes makes them more of a NUCLEAR THREAT. You have to be joking.
Not noticing a somewhat medieval mindset among the culture at large with which you're dealing has to be a joke. If they were still using the iron maiden or thumb screws would that be relevant? I would sure as hell think so. Treating women like dogs and dogs like lunch is a problem. And yes that is rhetoric, not to be taken literally genius. The point is other cultures can be just as screwed up as western culture and worse. Stop bathing in the self righteous pleasure of rebelling against your own government for five minutes and take a moment to realize the problem with all governments, and then that practically speaking your only defense from an aggressive foreign government might be the one you currently live under.
xahrx: wilderness:anybody can be president, even a mccain. that is THE threat. you never know who's going to jump out of that cake. 'surprise!!' No, but I think I can be reasonably sure the US president will not decide to bomb NY any time soon, regardless of who it is. I don't think even McCain/Palin would have been that batshit. Iranian leaders on the other hand might, and if not I don't see it as impossible that some people in that government would have no moral qualms in 'sponsoring' someone like UBL, who might be happy to find some disaffected middle eastern youth, promise him T&A in the afterlife, and convince him to walk into my home town with a nulcear present on his back. I support: stopping US military hostility and withdrawing from the middle eastern region which will lead to fewer such youths out there to recruit; and, holding individuals responsible for attacks on the US where appropriate and killing them if necessary.
The u.s. is over-there. over-there. and as auction- mentioned by his first-hand conversations with people outside of the u.s. the u.s is the threat and many in those other regions of the earth feel the need of self-defense is in order against the u.s. it's a he said, he said game, 'no i'm acting out of self-defense.' 'no, i am.' 'no, i am'., etc....
so for you it doesn't matter as long as there are no wars going on in NY, as long as they are over across the ocean or in Mexico (? i don't know), but as long as they are not in NY you feel safe. I guess you are looking out for #1 eh?
xahrx: wilderness:basically this is all about how you feel. you're scared. yeah, fear does make nightmares. Ad Metuis, the fallacy of blaming all opposing positions on fear because...
Ad Metuis, the fallacy of blaming all opposing positions on fear because...
You are dialoguing out of fear. 'the threat of iran' because as you said...
xahrx: Iranian leaders on the other hand might,
Iranian leaders on the other hand might,
Logically anything is possible that is NOT impossible.
xahrx: if at all, to make compromises.
if at all, to make compromises.
it's because of those that compromise that the need arises to engineer the next crop of people to declare all over again: 'let's make compromises'. and then the next generation comes along notices the faults of those that previously compromised, but again they repeat the same old, same old by selling off their soul to the devil, 'let's make compromises'.
xahrx: That being the case, how the hell do you ever expect to change anything in this world...
That being the case, how the hell do you ever expect to change anything in this world...
too much ego for me in that statement.
xahrx: when you would even take those who would be your allies
when you would even take those who would be your allies
who's my ally? the person advocating for peace, justice, and liberty or the person advocating compromises of peace, justice, and liberty
THIS is the real world - and - in this real world there are amazingly people who's efforts are NOT to compromise their morality. yes, it's amazing that these people practically exist.
xahrx: in the real political arena and throw them under the bus?
in the real political arena and throw them under the bus?
I adhere to the NAP so i don't advocating throwing anybody under the bus.
xahrx:Nothing so presitgious, so reliable, so wonderful as... the UN. Funny how the ultimate central state organization is where you go to for info.
They were right in Iraq, and people using your precise rationale, went head and murdered hundreds of thousands of people.
Based on your argument, if the NSA agrees with the UN, how can the NSA be right?
I'd also like an answer about what proof you have of a nuclear weapons program. Have you inspected Iran? Can you provide a source of anyone who has inspected Iran?
xahrx:The problem is those at the top are not of a piece with the people they rule, and might not be against developing nukes and 'losing' one or two, said nukes ending up in the hands of those who would willingly explode in a disco.
More fear-mongering. Do you have anything with substance? Or is that all you do, is use fear-mongering? Because this is just opinion. Nothing else.
Spideynw: xahrx: Spideynw:Correct. Fear requires a government to station troops all around the world, and then to bring them home slowly. Self defense just requires allowing people to own guns. Back to reality: our troops being stationed abroad has lead to a state of affairs that would have otherwise not existed. Pulling out immediately would in some cases lead to problemsConjecture.
Fact. Denying it is an act of idiocy. The rhetoric of blame is on display this very moment at the Copenhagen conference where at once the 'capitalist' US is denounced as evil while at the same time dictators beg for US money. Hypocrisy is not limited to the US government. There are people abroad, both in and out of politics, who want our troops there because they prosper in some way from our presence. This is true from corrupt contractors to people who would otherwise be dead in a blood feud,
Spideynw: xahrx:that the US would be blamed for,Fear-mongering.
Fact.
Spideynw: xahrx:To pretend simply pulling our troops out would have no negative consequences for the US is to bury your head in the sand.Opinion, not fact.
Granting this point, since it has never been done before, your claim there would be no consequences is just as much opinion as mine. However history backs me up, not you. You think Afganistan was an accident? The US government helped the Afgans up until it was convenient and then pulled out when it wasn't, leaving a country with a population of largely teenagers with no infrastructure, no schools, and no purpose anymore for a good many but to stew in their own crap about being abandoned. Granted the US should not have gotten involved to begin with, but it did. The question is not whether or not the US government committed an error; it did. The question is whether or not a massive pull out with little to no concern for what was being left behind politically and sociologically had negative consequences. I say it did.
auctionguy10:Since we're going to mention personal experience- I know plenty of relatives, friends, and business associates around the world that think US politicians are some of the worst liars there could ever be in terms of foreign policy- and they've felt this way for decades.
They are.
auctionguy10:Then again they think that all politcians are scum- but the United States is above and beyond the most dangerous with the kind of weapons that they possess- and their ability to invade and bomb anywhere they want in the world without fear of repurcussion(and if anyone DARES retialite, we'll spend 10 trillion dollars to kill even more of you ungrateful 3rd worlders)
Once more, I am advocating pulling our troops out, so what is your point? That if I don't advocate doing so immediately and without qualification then I am exactly the same as someone who wants to carpet bomb the rest of the planet into submission to a US empire? Seems even in the world you guys occupy there might be more shades of differentiation than that...
E. R. Olovetto:There's not a thing wrong with participating in statist society as a matter of self-defense. States claim sovereignty over Earth's entire land mass and even the moon. What's important is intentions. The difference between you and I is that you are willing to compromise on your supposed morals, because you think this will bring about change. I really don't care what you think or do, but I think your approach lends legitimacy to and helps perpetuate state mythology.
Bullshit. My intentions are for a complete pull out of troops, merely over a longer time frame than immediately, now, with no questions asked! However more than one person here has been quite clear about ignoring those intentions and arguing that even considering the possibility of negative consequences to an immediate pull out is tantamount to raping women and children and carpet bombing cities. You can come up with all the excuses you want, the bottom line is you have looked at the costs of establishing an anarcho capitalist paradise and have decided it is not in your interest to do so, and thus have accepted the state as a matter of practicality. You still argue against it, you still maintain your ideals, but you live in it as you must. So do I, to a differring degree. Stop coming up with excuses for your compromises to put balm on your precious ideological purity and either label yourself as a statist as you have done to me or admit that in a less than ideal world different people with the same ideals come to different conclusions about where and how to compromise those ideals for the best overall result in their individual evaluations of their own lives. You would not expect any two people when faced with marginal decisions to necessarily agree on anything per se, but somehow practical compromises to our ideals must agree 100%, or one of us is evil? Pure nonsense. Cow twinkies of the first order. All you're doing is coming up witj excuses and rationalizations as to why your particular compromises are reasonable while mine aren't. You think no one sufferred or was wronged to create the infrastructure you rely on every day for travel, communication, food, shelter, etc? Open your eyes for Christ's sake. Compromise is not the problem, we all do it because we don't live in a perfect world. The problem is when you get a bug up your ass about your own purity of vision and try to make excuses for all your deviations from that pure vision while everyone else has to be drawn and quartered for theirs.