I also "forgot" about the Carter administration feeding huge quantities of weapons and material to the Shah of Iran (after Eisenhower brought down an democratically elected goverment), allying itself with a well known mass murderer to keep Iran "in its place" while at the same time trading arms for hostages and money to fund another insurgency closer to home (illegally I may add) and shooting down an airliner full of people.

Yep, I forgot all about that. Your still angry about a few hostages, their still angry about the Shah. And as for 9/11...yeah I think you and Cheney have been drinking from the same zippycup.

I also do not hold all religions in contempt, many of their followers, like...

I also "forgot" about the Carter administration feeding huge quantities of weapons and material to the Shah of Iran (after Eisenhower brought down an democratically elected goverment), allying itself with a well known mass murderer to keep Iran "in its place" while at the same time trading arms for hostages and money to fund another insurgency closer to home (illegally I may add) and shooting down an airliner full of people.

Yep, I forgot all about that. Your still angry about a few hostages, their still angry about the Shah. And as for 9/11...yeah I think you and Cheney have been drinking from the same zippycup.

I also do not hold all religions in contempt, many of their followers, like George W. Bush, I do. Your position is like Hitchen's, he hates all religions, but is perfectly willing to side with American theocrats and their neocon allies (who are not religious, but are perfectly willing to exploit people's ignorance), to get what he wants.

Maybe you should cut past all the rhetoric (and hatred) and look at the situation from a deeper context. It might help.

ratilfar, You make some good points many of which I had forgotten about. We must always look at all of history so that we may fully understand the true motives behind the things take place in the world. Lately, I have been pulled in the opposite direction on some issues. It was not that long ago that I was making the same argument as you just did... but I have let others clouded my thinking with emotions as of late. Your points brought back into focus important facts about the past. When all things are taken into account, motive begin to make sense. I do not mean in anyway justification ensues ... just that I can understand why?

I also do not think that we should lay down and jus...

ratilfar, You make some good points many of which I had forgotten about. We must always look at all of history so that we may fully understand the true motives behind the things take place in the world. Lately, I have been pulled in the opposite direction on some issues. It was not that long ago that I was making the same argument as you just did... but I have let others clouded my thinking with emotions as of late. Your points brought back into focus important facts about the past. When all things are taken into account, motive begin to make sense. I do not mean in anyway justification ensues ... just that I can understand why?

I also do not think that we should lay down and just take what the mad world throws at us. I don't have the answers... but I also don't want my emotions to be my motive or guide... I only want logic and rational thinking based on facts to be my guide.

Once again I have been wrong and logic has made a correction for me. Thanks ratifar

I have never liked anything about this Bush administration. I cringed when he was elected the first time and was flabbergasted when America put him back into office a second time.

As for religion, my views have not changed. My views on religion are not based on emotion but rather logical, rational thinking.

Ok, fair enough. Mind you,all of this is pretty scary. Nuclear weapons, war, people willing to slam airliners into buildings (I was not afraid of flying before 9/11, I can't say that I as brave today). But at the same time, there is a lot of manipulating of information, a lot of agendas, a bait and switch if you will. "They" are horrible, "we" are saints, only because "we" are not as "horrible" as "they".

Just because Al of Iran is a whack job doesn't mean we have to take everything that "Dick" says at face value, I mean this is the man that traded with Iran )or at least his company did and he advocated open trade with them in public) in the face of existing U.S. law and [url=/clipmark/1C6...

Ok, fair enough. Mind you,all of this is pretty scary. Nuclear weapons, war, people willing to slam airliners into buildings (I was not afraid of flying before 9/11, I can't say that I as brave today). But at the same time, there is a lot of manipulating of information, a lot of agendas, a bait and switch if you will. "They" are horrible, "we" are saints, only because "we" are not as "horrible" as "they".

Just because Al of Iran is a whack job doesn't mean we have to take everything that "Dick" says at face value, I mean this is the man that traded with Iran )or at least his company did and he advocated open trade with them in public) in the face of existing U.S. law and was the man that in 1994 and in 2000 said that invading Iraq was not a good idea and then turned around and said that it would be a cake walk. These are matters of life and death and we have to be able to swallow are fear (as well as our pride) and look at all the facts. A war with Iran may yet occur, but should the U.S. be preparing for one or should they be spoiling for one? There lies the difference.

I agree with you 100 percent.

I think the main reason that Iran, North Korea etc... want nukes so bad is security. They have come to the conclusion that if they have nukes, no other nation will dare invade them and I have to say that they probably are right. Though these countries spew so much rhetoric, and seem completely crazy, something tells me that they know that for them to use a nuke offensively would be suicide.

If it were up to me, I would just let them have their nuke and just tell them, all of them who support terrorist, that if any nuke is ever set off in the western would by terrorist, we would not try to figure out who gave the bomb to them, we would just hold all of t...

I agree with you 100 percent.

I think the main reason that Iran, North Korea etc... want nukes so bad is security. They have come to the conclusion that if they have nukes, no other nation will dare invade them and I have to say that they probably are right. Though these countries spew so much rhetoric, and seem completely crazy, something tells me that they know that for them to use a nuke offensively would be suicide.

If it were up to me, I would just let them have their nuke and just tell them, all of them who support terrorist, that if any nuke is ever set off in the western would by terrorist, we would not try to figure out who gave the bomb to them, we would just hold all of then accountable and would immediately launch a full retaliatory attack on all of them wiping them out completely from existence. The ball would then be in their count. They would now have to be the ones worrying about keeping nukes out of the hands of terrorist. This is M.A.D with a twist.

This may seem extreme but it would work. It worked for the cold war, it will work for this as well. Just make the act us using a nuke so utterly unthinkable it effectively makes the nuke unusable.

And just to let them know we mean business, set off a couple of nukes over their dessert so they can witness just what a thermal nuke can do and then remind them we have thousands of these nukes that can be launched in a matter of just a few minutes.

Just look at the nuclear balance sheet:

U.S. 10,000 warheads (most are fusion devices of 50-100 kilotons+. with as much as 10%-30% above 500 kilotons or 1 megatons)

Russia: About 5,000 warheads (same set up as the U.S.)

France, UK and China: About 200 warheads each, probably a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of fusion to fission devices in the 25-75 kiloton range with a few megatoners to but (1-5 megatons each)

Israel: About 200 warheads, most are fission, but they seem to be upgrading them, making them smaller, or at least small enough to fit inside a Tomahawk cruise missile. I suspect they are in the 15-30 kiloton range.

India/Pakistan: A dozen warheads each, about 5-25 kilotons each, all fission ...

Just look at the nuclear balance sheet:

U.S. 10,000 warheads (most are fusion devices of 50-100 kilotons+. with as much as 10%-30% above 500 kilotons or 1 megatons)

Russia: About 5,000 warheads (same set up as the U.S.)

France, UK and China: About 200 warheads each, probably a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of fusion to fission devices in the 25-75 kiloton range with a few megatoners to but (1-5 megatons each)

Israel: About 200 warheads, most are fission, but they seem to be upgrading them, making them smaller, or at least small enough to fit inside a Tomahawk cruise missile. I suspect they are in the 15-30 kiloton range.

India/Pakistan: A dozen warheads each, about 5-25 kilotons each, all fission devices.

North Korea: Between 1-5 warheads, reliability unknown, capability to manufacture them en masse very limited, all fission devices in the 5-15 kiloton range.

Iran: May be able to build 5 bombs a year after building its first and would be similar to North Korean and Pakistani nukes in reliability and firepower. Limited ability to deliver said weapons (older SRBM and conventional aircraft).

So even if you consider a Israel vs. Iran nuke showdown, the Israelis have the Iranian beat (at least for now) and they could rely on the U.S. and other nations for support. And who would want to risk a loose nuke, one that could be turned against them.

I am delighted to see that my clip has created so much discussion, and I thank everyone who has been participating.

The discussion of nukes is extremely disturbing. The fact is that the United States has no desire to eliminate nukes from the world's arsenal. It's only desire is to make certain that the fewest numbers of country possess them, and that we always have the overwhelming advantage. If the U.S. really and truly wanted to disarm the world of nukes it would begin by setting an example. Begin diminishing our own stock of these murderous weapons as a signal that we really mean business. But instead Bush has the pentagon working on the development of new, smaller more compact bunker ...

I am delighted to see that my clip has created so much discussion, and I thank everyone who has been participating.

The discussion of nukes is extremely disturbing. The fact is that the United States has no desire to eliminate nukes from the world's arsenal. It's only desire is to make certain that the fewest numbers of country possess them, and that we always have the overwhelming advantage. If the U.S. really and truly wanted to disarm the world of nukes it would begin by setting an example. Begin diminishing our own stock of these murderous weapons as a signal that we really mean business. But instead Bush has the pentagon working on the development of new, smaller more compact bunker buster nukes, while at the same time screaming about how Iran must NEVER have nukes. All I ask is for some honesty. We must stop any further development on these deadly things. We must declare that we will not discuss using nukes as a military options and we must begin showing the world we mean business. Otherwise, all of this non-proliferation talk is pure bull.