Good post Rick.Comment Posted By Andy On 25.10.2007 @ 13:54
There is no definitive evidence, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. Iran's previous deceptions, previous public statements by its leaders that it needed a nuclear weapon, the economic inviability of its claimed nuclear power generation, experiments and activities that are wholly weapons-related, etc. etc. etc.
Now, a working theory I've had for some time now is that Iran does not desire a weapon directly but instead wants the capability to weaponize quickly if need be. This would provide them a measure of deterrence through ambiguity (do they really have one or don't they?)while keeping within the letter, if not the spirit, of the NPT.
Personally, I would be happy if the current issues with the IAEA were resolved and "closed" followed by Iran signing and ratifying the additional protocol - something it so far has refused to do.
Iran's game is currently playing for time while it progresses technically, it's goal being to master enrichment so that the EU3 goals are overtaken by reality. See exhibit A, a statement from Iran's nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani in 2004:Comment Posted By Andy On 18.09.2007 @ 09:49
As for the question of what we can do now that they all disagree with our having the fuel cycle, I submit to you that we require an opportunity, time to be able to act on our capability in this area. That is, if one day we are able to complete the fuel cycle and the world sees that it has no choice, that we do possess the technology, then the situation will be different. The world did not want Pakistan to have an atomic bomb or Brazil to have the fuel cycle, but Pakistan built its bomb and Brazil has its fuel cycle, and the world started to work with them. Our problem is that we have not achieved either one, but we are standing at the threshold. As for building the atomic bomb, we never wanted to move in that direction and we have not yet completely developed our fuel cycle capability. This also happens to be our main problem.
BTW, it's Dr. Jeffrey LEWIS, not Hart.
Good post nonetheless.Comment Posted By Andy On 17.09.2007 @ 17:15
Last time I checked, "turning yourself over to Jesus" is not used as an excuse for why someone did something bad. He hasn't, so far, blamed anyone or anything but himself for what he did. The only point I make is that is a rarity in today's celebrity culture and should be encouraged.Comment Posted By Andy On 29.08.2007 @ 11:49
You know, I think I have to say something good about Vick. It was refreshing, I think, to see that he has publicly admitted what he did was wrong, made no excuses, and did not take the route so many celebrities do of blaming their childhood, substance abuse or other lame reasons for their actions. If nothing else, Vick seems to be taking his well-deserved licks responsibly and for that reason believe he can be rehabilitated, of course time will tell.Comment Posted By Andy On 29.08.2007 @ 10:31
But the Republic or the â€œsanctity of marriageâ€ being in danger because two people in love want to get married? Thatâ€™s a stretch.
I believe that the opposite is actually true. Gay marriage, imo, could strengthen the institution of marriage, not weaken it. By all accounts, the gay people who want to get married are life-long companions.
As for the dire predictions about the GOP, never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot, and never underestimate the resiliency of a two-party system where many people will vote for tweedle-dum because he/she is the less bad than tweedle-dee.Comment Posted By Andy On 28.08.2007 @ 09:25
Personally, I think America is an imperialist power, but not in the way that Greenwald and other critics suggest. We are not imperialistic in the classic 19th and early 20th century way of colonizing and dominating the "wogs" of the world. Rather, America's "new imperialism" is much softer and is more interested in maintaining global trade and the current international system than colonizing and forcibly extracting resources a la the Romans, Brits, French, etc. This soft imperialism benefits the world much more than the traditional hard imperialism of a century ago.
AJB complains about the US "forcing" the free market on the world through the IMF and World Bank. They do so because lending money to governments without basic free market principles like transparency and accountability is throwing away money. History has proven that. What is so unreasonable about asking for reform before we give you money? My mortgage company demands more of me than the IMF and World Bank demand of most nations. The next superpower, China, understands this which is why they are reforming their economy and using the global system to their own advantage. American imperialism will have a primary role in creating this next superpower - ironic, isn't it?Comment Posted By Andy On 21.08.2007 @ 10:40
I might put forth that you're both right and wrong about "getting our fannies kicked." It's true that militarily, we have not, are not, and cannot lose in a military sense, but insurgencies and civil wars operate on a different plane and are not ultimately decided by simple combat operations. One could argue combat operations are secondary to concepts like population control and protection, information & media ops, etc. The surge was precisely designed to address the former, and as for the latter we are most certainly getting our fannies kicked among the constituencies that count.Comment Posted By Andy On 11.08.2007 @ 16:29
Just a clarification on intelligence "programs." The intelligence community divides highly-classified programs into "compartments." Each compartment has its own codename, access and dissemination requirements, etc. Personnel will be "read in" to these programs separately based on their job and "need to know."
Now, it's not clear from what I've read if these "programs" are combined into one or are separate as I described. If they are run by separate agencies then it's more likely they are separate, but it's no certainty.
But you're right that it's not clear if separate compartments has a meaningful difference legally, particularly when separate programs may be closely related and derive from a common authorizing order/legislation.
Personally, I think Gonzalez is a tool and has to go, but the Democrats are wasting their time with perjury. Prosecution would require declassification and exposure of US sources and methods - something that is very unlikely to occur.Comment Posted By Andy On 29.07.2007 @ 13:11
IMO, it's not up to us to "split the country into 3." First of all, the Iraqi government, despite its many faults, is the internationally recognized government of Iraq. The US simply cannot step in and dismantle that and create some artificiality of our own. One reason Iraq is the screwed-up mess it is today is because of British meddling with borders after WWI and the defeat of the Ottomans. The US has neither the authority, nor the expertise to unilaterally dismember a state into 3, even if it were possible to do so.
Secondly, there are other options.Comment Posted By Andy On 27.06.2007 @ 14:42