ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Why Iran - and everyone else - needs nukes

Frankly, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if countries like Switzerland and Sweden began thinking about developing or acquiring nuclear weapons, as apparently that is the only way to convince the USA and/or Israel to mind their own business:
During a panel at Yeshiva University on Tuesday evening, Sheldon Adelson, noted businessman and owner of the newspaper Israel Hayom, suggested that the US should use nuclear weapons on Iran to impose its demands from a position of strength.

Asked by moderator Rabbi Shmuley Boteach whether the US should negotiate with Iran if it were to cease its uranium enrichment program, Adelson retorted, “What are we going to negotiate about?”

Adelson then imagined what might happen if an American official were to call up an Iranian official, say “watch this,” and subsequently drop a nuclear bomb in the middle of the Iranian desert.
First of all, Iran is not an American problem. If Israel genuinely believes such an act is necessary and justified, they have their own nukes. Second, how can this sort of irresponsible talk not increase the determination of the Iranians to get their own nuclear devices operational as soon as possible?

It certainly makes one glad that the presidential candidate Adelson was almost single-handedly financing did not win. No matter how bad Obama is, there can be little question that McCain would have been worse.

Labels: ,

154 Comments:

Anonymous Soga October 26, 2013 3:29 PM  

Nuke control.

Gun control at the national scale.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 26, 2013 3:34 PM  

"Adelson then imagined what might happen if an American official were to call up an Iranian official, say “watch this,” and subsequently drop a nuclear bomb in the middle of the Iranian desert."

"Let's you and him fight".

I guess opposing such things is anti-semitism, and has been ever since "hate" was redefined as "having even the slightest reservations about giving an aggrieved minority every single thing it asks for, no matter how unreasonable or impractical".

Anonymous Mr. Stubby October 26, 2013 3:34 PM  

Bomb bomb bomb... bomb bomb Iran...

Anonymous 11B October 26, 2013 3:42 PM  

And they say the Tea Party folks are the crazy ones. So if you advocate balancing the budget, you are a wingnut. If you advocate dropping atomic weapons on another nation that has not attacked us, you are part of the responsible center and ruling coalition.

Anonymous Anonagain October 26, 2013 3:44 PM  

McCain is certainly as spiritually rotten and mentally psychotic as the current psycho in the White House, and therefore just as dangerous, but he would not have been idolized by legions of zombie retards as the Nigger from Hell. McCain would have had considerably more resistance from the hoi polloi.





Anonymous DonReynolds October 26, 2013 4:18 PM  

Many countries have nukes. Some of them are a bit surprising, but none of them have been used nor have they been loaned or sold to anyone who has used them. A majority of the nukes in this world may not even be in the hands of powers friendly to the USA or subject to White House control.

The USA has no reason to start dropping nukes in the Middle East and a good many reasons not to.

As many many Republicans would agree today, Juan McCain would be a terrible choice for President of the US...... just like he was a crummy choice in 2008. Has Obama proven to be worse than McCain would have been? No.....not yet.

Blogger Bob Loblaw October 26, 2013 4:20 PM  

Second, how can this sort of irresponsible talk not increase the determination of the Iranians to get their own nuclear devices operational as soon as possible?

That horse has already left the barn. Kadaffi gave up his nuclear program, and look what happened to him. And the counter example is North Korea, where not only do the nukes protect them from attack but also allow them to extort food and fuel. If I were running a third world shithole I'd be developing nukes as fast as humanely possible. In secret, of course, for as long as I could maintain it.

The Iranians aren't going to give up their nukes short of a full-scale invasion, and if we bomb them it will only make 'em less willing to show restraint when they finally have the weapons deployed.

Anonymous Bob October 26, 2013 4:25 PM  

"If Israel genuinely believes such an act is necessary and justified, they have their own nukes".

The United States and all the Goy living in it - all of its weapons and all its money, assets, national resources and any other thing worth more than a penny - are property of god's chosen to do with as they see fit.

If the Jews in Israel think the United states should detonate a nuclear device in the middle of Iran, or Libya, or Lebanon, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or anyplace else the Jews don't like, who are we to even suggest refusing?

Try to remember who the real bosses are.


Anonymous nick digger October 26, 2013 4:30 PM  

[McCain] would not have been idolized by legions of zombie retards as the Nigger from Hell.

No, but he would've been idolized by the legions of other retards, for his valiant service in Manchuria. The only resistance he would have faced, is protests against "racist wars against brown people". And oil, and Halliburton.

Blogger dienw October 26, 2013 4:50 PM  

God damned Japhethites: sons of Gomer (note that name and remember what God has declared against them): the sons of Ashkenaz and the sons of Tagarmah (whose sons are the Khazars (they mixed with Edomites); and damn the sons of Esau the Edomites - together these call themselves "Jews". These are not the true Israelites; they know it even if those who comment here refuse to acknowledge it; and these sons of Japheth seek the destruction of the true Israelites: the Ashkenazi - the elite ones - know who is whom and act on that knowledge; even if the true Israelites refuse to acknowledge this and act to save themselves.

Blogger dienw October 26, 2013 4:55 PM  

Spelling: Togarmah.
BTW: The bible has Gomer, meaning his descendants, leading the attack on the restored Israel, not the current "Israel."

Blogger napari October 26, 2013 5:06 PM  

The rhetoric keeps getting more shrill on both sides of the nuke issue. Id like to remind that Iran has , more or less, vowed the destruction of both the little(Israel) and big(USA) satans. This kind of rhetoric does not calm things in a country Israels size. If Iran wanted peace youd think they would STFU and mind their own business!

Anonymous John Regan October 26, 2013 5:14 PM  

VD, don't you think that Saudi Arabia has a lot more to do with aggression against Iran than Israel?

http://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/middle-east-truth/

Israel is often bellicose in their Iran rhetoric, but they never seem to do much about it. Plus, they have to keep good relations with the Saudis.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 26, 2013 5:17 PM  

"If Iran wanted peace youd think they would STFU and mind their own business!"

Great suggestion. I'm American and I want peace - so I think my own country should follow your excellent advice in regards to the Middle East (and, frankly, everywhere else too).

Anonymous Steve October 26, 2013 5:19 PM  

Adelson is not a representative of the Israeli government, or of any government, and I doubt Iran cares what a gambling billionaire thinks about anything at all. Iran wants nukes regardless of Mr. Adelson. But the nukes will make no difference to their survival. The Persians of Iran, like the West, have a below replacement birth rate. The bomb cannot solve the problems caused by children that never come into being.

Anonymous DonReynolds October 26, 2013 5:20 PM  

napari....... We do not have enough fingers and toes to count the countries that have promised to kill Americans wholesale. Let's include Cuba, North Korea, Red China, Russia, Vietnam, and Libya. Do you want to nuke them all? OK.....you get to join Juan McCain in the Time Out room.

Of course, if blood is more important than hateful rhetoric, then we need to focus on illegal aliens in the USA. They kill more Americans every year than any foreign nation. Now up to 25 dead Americans a day, which is worse than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Anonymous allyn71 October 26, 2013 5:21 PM  

"If Iran wanted peace youd think they would STFU and mind their own business!" - napari October 26, 2013 5:06 PM

What war has Iran started? What nations have they invaded? Whose business are they meddling in? Go spout that neo-con shit somewhere else. The only reason Iran is looking at getting a nuke is that appears to be the only way to do something like sell oil in a non dollar currency and not get invaded.

Anonymous Anonymous October 26, 2013 5:26 PM  

http://buchanan.org/blog/queen-obamaland-5957

"In 2008, D.C. went for Obama 93-6. The town belongs to the regime."

Should a city that is 93% Democratic rule a nation that is 47% Republican?

It's essentially one-party rule.

Anonymous Samuel Scott October 26, 2013 5:39 PM  

allyn71 October 26, 2013 5:21 PM

What war has Iran started? What nations have they invaded? Whose business are they meddling in?


Seriously? Iranian terrorist activities from Wikipedia

Iran's Islamic rulers may be religious fundamentalists, but they are not stupid. They are likely not going to nuke cities or countries if they would ever acquire nuclear weapons. That would be suicidal. You can't spread fundamentalist Islam if you are dead.

Rather, it's real politik. Possessing nuclear weapons gives one more free reign to do what one wishes -- such as more terrorist attacks as those described in the linked article -- without the threat of significant international reprisal. That's Iran's real goal. It's also what an Israeli Foreign Ministry official once told me "on background" over a beer in Jerusalem.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 26, 2013 5:40 PM  

And people around here say *I'm* the crazy one.

Anonymous frenchy October 26, 2013 5:45 PM  

@ Don Reynolds,

No. Not many countries have nukes. Only nine countries have nukes: U.S.; France; England; China, Russia; Pakistan; North Korea; India; and Israel.

With roughly 196 countries in the world, that's only 4.5%.

And even if/when a new country does gets them, there is still the problem of delivery. No one wants to kill themselves in the process of deploying the weapon. The one immediate effect that possessing nukes does give a country is assurance that they will most likely never be invaded by land.

Anonymous Samuel Scott October 26, 2013 5:46 PM  

John Regan October 26, 2013 5:14 PM

Israel is often bellicose in their Iran rhetoric, but they never seem to do much about it. Plus, they have to keep good relations with the Saudis.


If local Israeli media reports are to be believed, Israel has been days away from attacking Iran a few times in recent years but was essentially denied by the George W. Bush and Barak Obama administrations. Of course, I cannot verify this as fact myself.

An Israeli attack on Iran would actually improve relations with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis hate Iran because of the longstanding conflict between the Sunni and Shia factions of Islam and the secular conflicts between two powers that desire regional dominance.

Saudi Arabia would officially condemn Israel to please their people, but the government would cheer Israeli on unofficially.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 26, 2013 5:59 PM  

Even if someone blew up a nuke in the Iranian desert as a warning shot, harming few or no people (even that doesn't seem likely, the fallout would be all over the place)... but let's assume for a moment that absolutely nobody got hurt. It would still be a global catastrophe because it would signal that nukes were back on the table again. For decades it's been understood that nuclear weapons are a moral abomination and that they mainly work as a deterrent and weapon of last resort, and that nobody would actually USE them in the midst of a conflict, as part of a suite of other methods of warfare as it were. The US bombing of Japan is considered a one-off, and besides, it helped put a halt to the bloodiest war in history. To casually use one just to send a message would disrupt a long-standing global entente, with outcomes that would be, er, "unforeseeable" if you know what I mean (anybody here seen the hilarious political satire "In the Loop"?)

Anonymous 11B October 26, 2013 5:59 PM  

@Sam

You link to wikipedia for a list of terrorist activities that Iran may or may not be responsible for. But it still doesn't show that they invaded anyone.

If you want to make a list like this, couldn't you indict Israel, Uncle Sam, or a number of other nations too? Isn't the US backing murderous rebels in Iran? Didn't Israel assassinate several Iranian scientists? Isn't the US supplying arms to maniacs in Libya and Syria?

As an American I regard Mexico as more of a threat than Iran. Mexico in effect has actually invaded the USA, Iran has not. Mexico has dumped close to 20 million of its poorest citizens upon us. Additionally, they actively assist these invaders getting into and staying in my country. Now we are stuck with another permanent underclass that will forever be dependent upon government assistance. This is more damaging to the USA than anything Iran has, or will probably ever do.

If you want to nuke someone, nuke Mexico.

Anonymous Samuel Scott October 26, 2013 5:59 PM  

Anonymous October 26, 2013 5:26 PM

Should a city that is 93% Democratic rule a nation that is 47% Republican? It's essentially one-party rule.


Not relevant. D.C. has one delegate (non-voting) member in the U.S. House. and no senators. The residents of D.C. themselves -- by which I mean private citizens who are not involved in government at all -- have no say in federal-government policy.

Anonymous jm October 26, 2013 6:03 PM  

Shmuley Boteach! Now there's a name I haven't heard in a while.

Anonymous frenchy October 26, 2013 6:07 PM  

@ Samuel Scott,

You really only addressed the third part of allyn71´s question, but tried to pass it off as Iran is guilty of all three. Iran has not started any wars, and has invaded no one.

Does Iran support terrorist activities? Iran has its hands dirty for sure. As does the U.S.. As does Israel. And I would not trust Wikipedia as a source. After all, that same link suggests that Al-Qaeda, and Iran had links. Funny how a Shiite country would ally with a Sunni terrorist group (from a country that hates it--Saudi Arabia) when that same terrorist group has been killing its govt officials in its E/SE corner.. Did you know that right after 9/11, Iran approached the U.S. stating that it wanted to work with it to destroy Al Qaeda?

As for terrorism, we just don't call it terrorism when we do it, or fund it, or use some proxy. But you'd better believe those on the receiving end do.

"Rather, it's real politik. Possessing nuclear weapons gives one more free reign to do what one wishes -- such as more terrorist attacks as those described in the linked article -- without the threat of significant international reprisal. That's Iran's real goal. It's also what an Israeli Foreign Ministry official once told me "on background" over a beer in Jerusalem."

So this applies to all countries that have nukes, huh? Interesting. Who has nukes again? :-)

Anonymous Anonymous October 26, 2013 6:12 PM  

"If you want to nuke someone, nuke Mexico."

And Detroit.

- Reggin

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 26, 2013 6:20 PM  

By the way, isn't it time that someone pointed out that our involvement in Israel's conflicts with its enemies violates the principle of separation of church and state that we're all supposed to cherish?

What I mean is this: I'm very confident that what that principle was about was not the Founding Fathers being kept up at night pacing their floors in abject terror that someday a high school valedictorian might say a 30-second prayer at a graduation ceremony. But I'm equally sure that what that principle was about was things like keeping this country from getting involved in other peoples' religious wars.

Anonymous Samuel Scott October 26, 2013 6:22 PM  

frenchy October 26, 2013 6:07 PM

You really only addressed the third part of allyn71´s question, but tried to pass it off as Iran is guilty of all three. Iran has not started any wars, and has invaded no one.


I didn't address that issue because the metric is false. Few countries today "invade" anyone. The nature of warfare today has changed. There are no more front lines with massive armies facing each other. War is waged by direct and indirect support of groups and/or individuals that, for example, bomb pizzarias in Tel Aviv, fly planes into the World Trade Center, and attack subways in London. I'm sure that Iran had at least some influence in Hamas' decision to fire rockets into Tel Aviv last year -- some of which landed within earshot of me.

Iran has not "invaded" anyone, but it is certainly involved in numerous activities akin to these.

Does Iran support terrorist activities? Iran has its hands dirty for sure. As does the U.S.. As does Israel.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not discussing U.S. and Israeli activities. That's a diversion -- those issues are separate discussions. The issue is whether Iran does or does not directly or indirectly fund and support violent activity that is dangerous to the international order. The answer, to me, is clearly "yes."

Did you know that right after 9/11, Iran approached the U.S. stating that it wanted to work with it to destroy Al Qaeda?

Yes, I know that. And that is one reason I still despise George W. Bush. For some reason we'll never know, he mentioned Iran in his "Axis of Evil" speech, and everything went to Hell from there. Things were looking better up until that point. Iran became more radicalized, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president, in one example.

"Rather, it's real politik. Possessing nuclear weapons gives one more free reign to do what one wishes -- such as more terrorist attacks as those described in the linked article -- without the threat of significant international reprisal. That's Iran's real goal. It's also what an Israeli Foreign Ministry official once told me "on background" over a beer in Jerusalem."

So this applies to all countries that have nukes, huh? Interesting. Who has nukes again? :-)


The difference is offensive vs. defensive. Israel just wants to be left the f--k alone. The nukes are purely defensive. But Iran, among others, go on the offensive and routinely threaten to destroy Israel. It's apples and oranges.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 26, 2013 6:29 PM  

"Israel just wants to be left the f--k alone to establish a brutal Apartheid state on stolen land in Palestine."

Fixed.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 26, 2013 6:36 PM  

Last night, I watched the movie "Damnation Alley" starring George Peppard and Jan-Michael Vincent - a post-apocalyptic movie made in a time when the operating consensus on both the left and the right was that nuclear war was a very, very bad thing that ought to be avoided if at all possible.

It was a much different era, long ago now...

Anonymous Samuel Scott October 26, 2013 6:39 PM  

I wrote:

And that is one reason I still despise George W. Bush. For some reason we'll never know, he mentioned Iran in his "Axis of Evil" speech, and everything went to Hell from there. Things were looking better up until that point. Iran became more radicalized, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president, in one example.

I also despise him for the BS Iraq war. Geopolitics is a chess game. There was a balance of power between Iraq and Iran. As long as they were at odds, neither one could becomes too strong. But once Iraq was taken out, that paved the way for Iran to grow in influence. Power abhors a vacuum. Madness.

Anonymous 11B October 26, 2013 6:40 PM  

@Sam

Which is more of a threat to Israel, Iran or non-Jewish immigrants?

Anonymous Josh October 26, 2013 6:41 PM  

The nukes are purely defensive. But Iran, among others, go on the offensive and routinely threaten to destroy Israel. It's apples and oranges.

You JUST SAID

Iran's Islamic rulers may be religious fundamentalists, but they are not stupid. They are likely not going to nuke cities or countries if they would ever acquire nuclear weapons. That would be suicidal. You can't spread fundamentalist Islam if you are dead.

So which is it?

Anonymous Samuel Scott October 26, 2013 6:49 PM  

11B October 26, 2013 6:40 PM

Which is more of a threat to Israel, Iran or non-Jewish immigrants?


Interesting question! But I must ask you to define your terms.

Do you mean "immigrants" as in people who move here and become citizens even though they are not personally Jews (which is allowed if a person had at least one grandparent who was a Jew) as in the many non-Jews from Soviet countries who came here in the 1990s? Or are you referring to migrant workers, refugees or infiltrators (depending one one's term of choice) from African countries?

I'll presume you mean the latter.

In the short term, I'd say Iran. I personally heard rockets explode last year that were fired towards Tel Aviv by Iran-financed Hamas. So, rockets get my first vote. But the African migrants (or whatever) pose another threat because they have basically take over South Tel Aviv with their violence, crime, theft, prostitution, drunkenness, and more.

So, it's hard to say. If I had to pick, I'd say Iran in the short term but the migrants in the long term.

Anonymous Samuel Scott October 26, 2013 6:55 PM  

Josh October 26, 2013 6:41 PM

So which is it?


Notice that I used the word "likely." I'm basing my opinion on the view that the Iranian regime, in the end, is rational more than irrational and suicidal. (Though I might be biased subconsciously since I would die if they nuke Tel Aviv.)

Say there is only a 5% chance that Iran would actually nuke Israel, based on their statements and behavior. That's still a 5% chance. Israel has a 0% desire to annihilate any neighboring countries. We just want to be left the f--k alone. This is the difference I meant. Still, I could be wrong and it could be a 95% chance that Iran will nuke us.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 26, 2013 6:58 PM  

"Israel has a 0% desire to annihilate any neighboring countries."

Except Palestine.

"We just want to be left the f--k alone."

So do the Palestinians.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 26, 2013 7:00 PM  

"Few countries today "invade" anyone."

Heard about Houston?
Heard about Compton?
Heard about Central L.A.?
-- apologies to David Byrne

"The nature of warfare today has changed. There are no more front lines with massive armies facing each other. War is waged by direct and indirect support of groups and/or individuals..."

Pfft, small potatoes. Modern warfare is mostly waged in maternity wards and abortion clinics.

Anonymous 11B October 26, 2013 7:02 PM  

Or are you referring to migrant workers, refugees or infiltrators (depending one one's term of choice) from African countries?

Yes, I am referring to what would be described in the USA as "diversity". I ask because there is no question the biggest threat to America, whether one wants to admit it or not, is third world immigration. Whether legal or illegal, it doesn't matter. As the demographics change so to does the country. So I see no point in confronting Iran if we are not willing to maintain America at home. Likewise, what is the point in defending Israel from Iran if you are going to be swamped with third worlders. If Israel loses its Jewish majority, it's no longer Israel. It might be called Israel, but like America, without the founding populace it's not the same place.

Anonymous zen0 October 26, 2013 7:18 PM  

Adelson, who donated tens of millions of dollars to defeated Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the most recent campaign,

Now, I do not know if he donated to Mcain or not, but let us stay on the more current course.

McCain has descended into Biden territory.

Anonymous frenchy October 26, 2013 7:22 PM  

@ Samuel Scott,

"The metric is false?" It's not about metrics but what allyn71's question to you, and that was "who has Iran invaded?" If A uses B as a proxy to invade C, A did not invade C. B invaded C. Furthermore, the size of the unit does not mean it is not an invasion. How many people does it take to break into your house? 1. It's called a home invasion. So whether or not it's a fire-team, a squad, or a brigade, when you cross the boundary of another country with your military hardware, or personnel, without the express permission of that govt, it's called an invasion.

Using your World Trade Center example, well...bad example of an invasion since they were in the U.S. by permission--valid paperwork (visas).

And you want ot know why Iran became more radicalized after 9/11? There was an election, and the moderate lost thanks to G.W. Bush who: 1) put Iran on the axis of evil list right after Iran extended an olive branch to the U.S., which led to 2) Bush told Iranians not to vote for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Well, it went kinda like this in the minds of the Iranians, "If Bush hates him, I'm voting for him!"

I threw in the example of the U.S. and Israel for a reason--you cannot discuss Iran without discussing the U.S. and Israel. This is not a red herring. These two countries are the main antagonists making accusations against Iran. They accuse Iran for supporting terrorist activities, yet they commit acts of war and terrorism against Iran, and others. But it's not terrorism when they do it. Who was behind Stuxnet? Who is behind all of these killings of these Iranian nuclear scientists? Who is behind the sanctions against Iran for having a nuclear program? Say it with me: Israel and the U.S..

So, Iran, which has no nukes, will use them offensively against a country which, according to Jimmy Carter, has about 300? Does that make any reasonable sense to you? And Israel, with its 300 nukes, will only use them if provoked--all 300 of them...defensively? So, they going to drop them on themselves? Oh I get it! Defensively means preemptively! But doesn't preemptively mean an offensive usage?

And the point I was making in response to your last comment was that you said that countries with nukes:

"[have] more free reign to do what one wishes -- such as more terrorist attacks as those described in the linked article -- without the threat of significant international reprisal. That's Iran's real goal. It's also what an Israeli Foreign Ministry official once told me "on background" over a beer in Jerusalem."

By your own words, then that can only apply to nine countries on this planet, and Israel is one of them. It cannot apply to Iran because Iran has no nukes, and no nuclear weapons program...unless it wishes to put some Uranium 235 in a bucket and swing it in a circle.

And if Israel wants to be left alone, then it should follow the 2nd greatest commandment--"Love thy neighbor as thyself"...and not build 40ft walls around him among other things.

Anonymous zen0 October 26, 2013 7:26 PM  

Say there is only a 5% chance that Iran would actually nuke Israel, based on their statements and behavior. That's still a 5% chance. Israel has a 0% desire to annihilate any neighboring countries. We just want to be left the f--k alone. This is the difference I meant. Still, I could be wrong and it could be a 95% chance that Iran will nuke us.

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction only works if both sides are capable of destroying the other.

When one side has an ideology that sees its own destruction a good thing if it involves the destruction of the infidel on the other side, then MAD loses its regulatory function.

The interesting thing is that the Muslims in charge only pay lip service to the concept that they recommend for their people.

They would probably end up nuking the Saudis for some reason first.

Can't say I would be chagrined about that.

Anonymous Alat October 26, 2013 7:37 PM  

I didn't address that issue because the metric is false. Few countries today "invade" anyone.

Off the top of my head, from the last thirty years: Grenada, Panama, Iraq (first time), Afghanistan, Iraq (second time), by the United States. Lebanon (twice) by Israel.

Iran has not invaded anyone since the mid-18th century.

If you want to discuss another metric, it's going to be a tough sell to say that Iranian black-ops are more lavishly funded or efficiently executed then either the American or the Israeli ones.

And if you go to an even broader definition and include support for political movements (say Hezbollah), then Iranian meddling is dwarfed by American aid to Israel and Arab states by several orders of magnitude.

Israel just wants to be left the f--k alone

This begs the question. So do the Palestinians. The problem is, who gets the upper hand? If the Israelis are "left alone" they way they define "left alone", the Palestinians most surely won't considers themselves to have been "left alone" by the Israelis.

Anonymous DonReynolds October 26, 2013 7:50 PM  

@ Don Reynolds,

Frenchy......."No. Not many countries have nukes. Only nine countries have nukes: U.S.; France; England; China, Russia; Pakistan; North Korea; India; and Israel."

Sonny, you left out NATO......they got plenty of nukes and you left out other significant alliances, like Japan and South Korea, with American nukes at the ready to defend those countries if they are attacked.

Frenchy......"With roughly 196 countries in the world, that's only 4.5%."

You need to start counting noses instead of names on a map. There are few counties of any significant population that do not have nukes or access to them if they are needed.

Frenchy......"And even if/when a new country does gets them, there is still the problem of delivery. No one wants to kill themselves in the process of deploying the weapon. The one immediate effect that possessing nukes does give a country is assurance that they will most likely never be invaded by land."

Silly rabbit. Even a very crude nuke would fit on a ship, and the ship does not even have to be your own, for it to sail into New York harbor. The suicide nuke delivery monkeys need not be told they are on a suicide mission. Yeah.....sucks.

Anonymous zen0 October 26, 2013 7:52 PM  

frenchy plays the victim card:

and not build 40ft walls around him among other things.

You left out " for no reason whatsoever".

I can't believe you did that.

Anonymous zen0 October 26, 2013 7:56 PM  

@ VD
First of all, Iran is not an American problem. If Israel genuinely believes such an act is necessary and justified, they have their own nukes.

This has to be some comfort to the anti-neo-cons that the O is, either by design or incompetence, unwinding all these toxic relationships.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 26, 2013 8:12 PM  

The real conflict is Iran (Persians) versus Saudi Arabia (Arabs). Israel is convrnient occasional distractor.

Anonymous DonReynolds October 26, 2013 8:24 PM  

Frenchy....."The one immediate effect that possessing nukes does give a country is assurance that they will most likely never be invaded by land."

Where have you been, boy?

Your statement assumes that a country would use nukes on their own soil if invaded. Think again.

They had plenty of nukes during the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict but it did not keep them from being overrun by communist hoards. Back in the 1950s, we had tactical nukes that could be fired from heavy cannon, and they worked just fine. Have they ever been fired in anger?

Nuclear weapons have never been used defensively and only two have ever been used offensively.

A pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran? Why not North Korea.....or are communist nations exempt?

We all know why the Israeli military do not drop a nuke on Iran and get it over with. Even the US military could not save them afterward.

Anonymous zen0 October 26, 2013 8:33 PM  

Bob chimes in:

Try to remember who the real bosses are.

Lets see now , Bob. Israel has been lobbying for a strike on Iran since, oh, I don't know , shortly after 9/11?

How is that working out for them so far?

Times have changed, Bob. A long time ago. The old knee jerk reactions aren't as good as they used to be.

Anonymous Samson Option October 26, 2013 8:39 PM  

We all know why the Israeli military do not drop a nuke on Iran and get it over with. Even the US military could not save them afterward.

Or Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, or Syria, or Iran, or Egypt, or Iraq, or Pakistan, or [insert random Islamic nation here]

Or, who knows, Germany might get a house call.

Blogger Jordan179 October 26, 2013 8:40 PM  

Iran is not an American problem.

I think that this depends on whether Iran makes herself an American problem.

Iran has rather steadily committed acts of war against the United States of America from 1979 to the present day, usually by backing terrorist attacks against US allies, sometimes more directly against the US or US forces (as in 1979-80, 1983 and again in 2003-09). This is how Iran behaves against the strongest nuclear Power on Earth when she has no nuclear weapons. It is highly-improbable that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons will suddenly make them more cautious in their behavior.

Because Iran launches these attacks, there is a more or less constant risk of war between America and Iran. If Iran has nuclear weapons, then that war may well be nuclear.

But it's worse than that. The Iranian leadership believe that there will be an apocalyptic war between the true Muslims (themselves) and the Infidels (anyone who isn't their kind of Muslim, or isn't Muslim at all) in the course of which a million Faithful will die and this will trigger the return of the Hidden Imam and the direct intervention of Allah in the wars of Man, giving the Faithful (themselves) dominion over the whole world.

This means that, instead of being deterred by the adverse correlation of forces, the Iranians may actually be tempted by them to launch a nuclear strike on the United States and/or Russia and/or Israel -- anyone strong enough to martyr the requisite number of Faithful. Their calculations are thus not determined by reason in the same sense that Russia's were during the Cold War, and we therefore cannot assume that a nuclear stalemate will ensue.

Blogger napari October 26, 2013 8:42 PM  

One things for sure, pro or con, any time Israel is mentioned the crap throwing monkeys show up with wild statements,declarations, decrees, and judgements about what the sovereign country of Israel ought to do. Oughta get your own side of the street cleaned up before telling people what to do with their side of the street.

Blogger napari October 26, 2013 8:55 PM  

Perfect example of a crap throwing monkey.
allyn71 October 26, 2013 5:21 PM
"If Iran wanted peace youd think they would STFU and mind their own business!" - napari October 26, 2013 5:06 PM

What war has Iran started? What nations have they invaded? Whose business are they meddling in? Go spout that neo-con shit somewhere else. The only reason Iran is looking at getting a nuke is that appears to be the only way to do something like sell oil in a non dollar currency and not get invaded.

Ahmadinejad is world famous for his declaration of "washing the world in blood".
He oughta learn to taper his mouth.

Anonymous Josh October 26, 2013 9:03 PM  

Ahmadinejad is world famous for his declaration of "washing the world in blood".
He oughta learn to taper his mouth.


You do realize he's no longer the President of Iran, don't you?

Anonymous Josh October 26, 2013 9:07 PM  

One things for sure, pro or con, any time Israel is mentioned the crap throwing monkeys show up with wild statements,declarations, decrees, and judgements about what the sovereign country of Israel ought to do. Oughta get your own side of the street cleaned up before telling people what to do with their side of the street.

You also have people telling the "sovereign country of the United States of America" what they should do.

For example, Bibi.

Anonymous Black October 26, 2013 9:20 PM  

Whatever happens, we don't want Iran to get to the point they launch nuclear warheads. And we can be sure, if the opportunity presents itself, Israel will be attacked and the internationally community (or U.S. to begin with) won't have the strength for a counterattack which could result in a crippling retaliation from Iran's allies.

Make sure you are saved: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

1. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/End%20of%20the%20World/three_world_wars.htm

2. http://www.godlovespeople.com/

3. http://www.jesusisprecious.org/

4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlyGmerlknk (Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". Found that to be VERY convincing sermon detailing Hell. Hell is real. Get right with God Almighty, Lord Jesus Christ!

Feel free to copy/paste share links with family, friends and others wherever you can online and elsewhere.

Thoughtful post Vox. See you around.

Anonymous Josh October 26, 2013 9:23 PM  

And we can be sure, if the opportunity presents itself, Israel will be attacked and the internationally community (or U.S. to begin with) won't have the strength for a counterattack which could result in a crippling retaliation from Iran's allies.

How can we be sure?

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 26, 2013 9:35 PM  

"One things for sure, pro or con, any time Israel is mentioned the crap throwing monkeys show up with wild statements,declarations, decrees, and judgements about what the sovereign country of Israel ought to do. Oughta get your own side of the street cleaned up before telling people what to do with their side of the street."

Take the king's penny, play the king's tune. If Israel doesn't want Americans to tell them what to do, they can stop taking billions of our tax dollars and billions more worth of free weapons and technology transfers, and decline the political, economic, military, and diplomatic favors we provide them.

I keep hearing from Israel flacks about how prosperous and powerful Israel is. Okay - put up or shut up. If you're so rich, stop taking welfare. If you're so powerful, then stand on your own without Daddy to help you win your fights.

Don't want Daddy to tell you what to do? Then be big boys and girls and make your own way own way in the world. Or shut up and do what Daddy tells you like good little boys and girls.

Blogger Jordan179 October 26, 2013 9:43 PM  

napari said:

What war has Iran started?

Which one? There's the ones they started against us in 1979 and 1983, and the one they started against us and Iraq around 2005.

What nations have they invaded?

America (1979), Lebanon (1983-present) and Iraq (2005-09).

Whose business are they meddling in?

America's, Israel's, Iraq's and Saudi Arabia's, to name the most obvious four.

The only reason Iran is looking at getting a nuke is that appears to be the only way to do something like sell oil in a non dollar currency and not get invaded.

??? The only oil-producing country we've actually invaded, I think ever, is Iraq -- and we did that because Saddam Hussein violated every term of the truce of 1991.

Blogger  Trust Ted get misled. Gamma secret kings reddit October 26, 2013 9:59 PM  

Is this more a case of senility sinking in or a baby boomer/greatest generation meltdown?

Like other countries, say, Iceland, maybe Iran does not want to participate in certain banking methods.

All of this just reflects the boomers and those over 70 have pushed disastrous policies for which I already fled from with Dad in tow, mommyderfurur split. So dad and I are better off and finally not anywhere near a fucking PS or near any of these idiots trolling around on the right and left horror show.

Blogger  Trust Ted get misled. Gamma secret kings reddit October 26, 2013 10:02 PM  

Nuking Iran or any other country isn't a good policy.

What about Iran's economic situation? Has anyone read the latest that Iran faces? It appears we have a global or most of certain industrialized nation in a economic depression.

Blogger Tom Kratman October 26, 2013 10:05 PM  

No, Scoob, for decades it was understood that, in the event of a Soviet attack in Europe, if we began to lose, we would open with tactical nukes. Nobody was too very concerned about moral abominations; first use was our policy to stave off conventional defeat. We've dumped our tac nukes now, at least for the most part, though one doubts how much of a factor moral abomination was in that, since we've retained our city busters.

Which is, by the way, why the Iranians want them, not to balance our nukes, which is beyond their abilities, but to offset our conventional superiority.

Anonymous Josh October 26, 2013 10:08 PM  

America's, Israel's, Iraq's and Saudi Arabia's, to name the most obvious four.

Who started messing with whose business first?

Anonymous zen0 October 26, 2013 10:12 PM  

Anti-Democracy Activist gets on a high hobby horse:

I keep hearing from Israel flacks about how prosperous and powerful Israel is. Okay - put up or shut up. If you're so rich, stop taking welfare. If you're so powerful, then stand on your own without Daddy to help you win your fights.

Righteous emotion is a powerful thing. Now go research how Israel is like a military tech lab that the U.S. is dependent upon to keep on the cutting edge of military technology.

Ain't no welfare. Be payback.

Still and all, they should stop taking the gratuity, and just charge more for services rendered.

Anonymous Alexander October 26, 2013 10:20 PM  

Uhuh.

Gotta keep that military edge over the rock throwing goat herders.

Anonymous Big Bill October 26, 2013 10:21 PM  

"The rhetoric keeps getting more shrill on both sides of the nuke issue. Id like to remind that Iran has , more or less, vowed the destruction of both the little(Israel) and big(USA) satans. "

Son, you must be pretty young. The Russians also swore they would destroy America. But we had this thing called Mutually Assured Destruction. And that was with a real adversary, not some flea-bitten bunch of Persian camel jockeys with no industrial base, no farmland, and no human capacity to make war.

I don't see Iran lobbing a nuke at us anymore than the Israelis do. With some 150-300 nukes and their Saudi Sunni allies's permission to overfly Saudi airspace and take the Iranian Shiites out whenever they want, Israel is in no more danger than we are.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 26, 2013 10:23 PM  

"for decades it was understood that, in the event of a Soviet attack in Europe, if we began to lose, we would open with tactical nukes. Nobody was too very concerned about moral abominations; first use was our policy to stave off conventional defeat."

In other words, conventional defeat in Europe was considered an absolutely unacceptable outcome. In which case, weapons of last resort would be used, trumping the moral sense. Which is precisely what I said. In fact, it's a perfect case study of moral reasoning in the ethics of nuclear weapons: Soviet domination of Western Europe was considered to be more dangerous and threatening than letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle, and strategy was fixed accordingly.

Nobody nuked Leningrad when the Soviets put down the Hungarian uprising. That would not have been an unacceptable/last resort scenario. Again, moral reasoning in action.

I stand by what I said. Think before you say, "No, scoob..." Heh.

Anonymous Big Bill October 26, 2013 10:28 PM  

"f local Israeli media reports are to be believed, Israel has been days away from attacking Iran a few times in recent years but was essentially denied by the George W. Bush "

Oh for heaven's sake! They are big boys. They can pull up their big boy pants and do whatever they like whenever they like. What a patronizing attitude to take toward the Jewish Nation.

Anonymous zen0 October 26, 2013 10:28 PM  

Alexander October 26, 2013 10:20 PM

Uhuh.

Gotta keep that military edge over the rock throwing goat herders.


What are you even doing here? Collecting discarded bottles for the deposit refund not good enough for you?

Anonymous Alexander October 26, 2013 10:33 PM  

That doesn't even make sense.

Anonymous Smokey October 26, 2013 10:37 PM  

From what I understand, Israel has a great air force, and an unmatched capacity for spying, assassinations and sabotage (say what you want about the Mossad, but they are masters of their craft), but their infantry sucks ass. I'm not sure about their navy.

Anonymous zen0 October 26, 2013 10:38 PM  

That doesn't even make sense.

(laughs) sleep on it. You will get it in the morning. Let the zen of your brain assist you.

Meanwhile, maybe think about how all this military technology may have to be developed to keep up with the guys that sell stuff to the goat herders. I was going to say it is not rocket science, but some of it actually is.

Anonymous Bob October 26, 2013 10:40 PM  

ZenO sez:

Lets see now , Bob. Israel has been lobbying for a strike on Iran since, oh, I don't know , shortly after 9/11?

(So what? What did Iran have to do with 911?}

How is that working out for them so far?

(That's just another one of their enemies they haven't gotten us to fight yet, but they keep trying.}

Times have changed, Bob. A long time ago. The old knee jerk reactions aren't as good as they used to be.

(Times have not changed. Not one iota. Modern Israel was created by force on Arab-occupied territory with the UN's highly contested blessing, and the fight for that land is far from over.}

Just look at the Fed, the United States Congress, our financial institutions, the media, Hollywood, our large corporations and businesses everywhere.. They are bursting at the seams with Jews. That makes them the real bosses.

That the way it is. No matter how the Jews try to hide or deny it, they run the show.

Anonymous Big Bill October 26, 2013 10:42 PM  

"Silly rabbit. Even a very crude nuke would fit on a ship, and the ship does not even have to be your own, for it to sail into New York harbor."

Nukes in New York City harbor? You mean no more Goldman Sachs? No more Gay Pride Parade? No more Upper East Side? No more Harlem? No more East Village? I think that is called a feature, not a bug.

Anonymous zen0 October 26, 2013 10:43 PM  

but their infantry sucks ass. I'm not sure about their navy.

They only have to suck less ass than the Arabs, which is pretty difficult to do.

Plus, I don't think you can even google arab navy and get anything.

Anonymous Alexander October 26, 2013 10:44 PM  

So which is it now?

Is Israel doing us a favor by generously allowing us to keep our military fighting fit and should, in fact, be charging us more for the privilege... or are we back to America protecting Israel from nations with the right weaponry to wipe them out if we didn't jump in to their defense?

Anonymous zen0 October 26, 2013 10:46 PM  

Bob rebuts: That the way it is. No matter how the Jews try to hide or deny it, they run the show.

Well, if that is the case, Bob, its a damn piss poor show on their part.

Anonymous Bob October 26, 2013 10:49 PM  

Agreed

Anonymous 11B October 26, 2013 10:52 PM  

Iran has rather steadily committed acts of war against the United States of America from 1979 to the present day, usually by backing terrorist attacks against US allies, sometimes more directly against the US or US forces (as in 1979-80, 1983 and again in 2003-09). This is how Iran behaves against the strongest nuclear Power on Earth when she has no nuclear weapons.

Mexico has steadily sent a stream of illegal infiltrators into the United States for the past 35 years to the point where they have demographically changed the United States, and caused it to add a De facto second language and to alter the political balance of power. Certain political action is deemed impossible, lest it anger this new cohort.

This is how Mexico behaves against the strongest nuclear Power on Earth when she has no nuclear weapons.

Jordan, which is the bigger threat to America, Iran or Mexico?

Anonymous zen0 October 26, 2013 10:58 PM  

Alexander

How many straw dogs do you want me to burn down? Israel is doing military tech research that benefits America. This is not a favor. This is a business deal. Yes, they should charge more, and not accept aid.

America is not protecting Israel from anybody. All their foreign adventures in the Mid-east are of their own volition.

Any time Israel has been threatened in a material manner (1948, 1967, 1972) America has done nothing in response. How is that a protecting relationship?

C'mon, man.

Anonymous 11B October 26, 2013 11:07 PM  

America is not protecting Israel from anybody. All their foreign adventures in the Mid-east are of their own volition.

Give us a little credit for the billions we supply Israel each year. In fact we recently committed to supplying Israel with $30 billion over the next decade.

Additionally, it seems our main purpose in the United Nations is to veto resolutions perceived as anti-Israeli.

As for 1973, keep in mind we provided an airlift to resupply the IDF after it had been sucker punched.

We've also taken a lot of blowback, such as in Lebanon in 1983, for getting involved in Israel's squabbles.

So a little appreciation would be nice.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist October 26, 2013 11:07 PM  

Righteous emotion is a powerful thing. Now go research how Israel is like a military tech lab that the U.S. is dependent upon to keep on the cutting edge of military technology.

Right, which explains all those Merkavas and Lavis the US Army and USAF are equipped with. Oh, wait...

Sorry, no. America can do just fine in designing its own horribly impractical, astronomically overpriced weapons (see: F-35) without Israel.

Ain't no welfare. Be payback.

An honest businessman presents a bill for his services. You assert the need for "payback" via a byzantine scheme involving the US Congress, taxpayers, lobbyists, and defense contractors, all funneled through the "foreign aid" program we use to help feed starving Haitians. There's a term for that kind of thing: money laundering. People who aren't running a sleazy scam don't do that kind of thing, or need to.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 26, 2013 11:12 PM  

jordan179, in which planet were you dropped on your head?

Anonymous cheddarman October 26, 2013 11:12 PM  

All of this song and dance with Iran is about keeping the petro dollar as the worlds reserve currency... If Iran sells their oil in transaction that does not involve the U.S. dollar, they are our enemy and we will come up with an excuse to go to war with them.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 26, 2013 11:23 PM  

"Any time Israel has been threatened in a material manner (1948, 1967, 1972) America has done nothing in response."

All those dates you cite... they seem to have something in common... can't quite... it's on the tip of my tongue...

Oh, yes, now I remember. Cold War. Soviet client states. Don't want to escalate into Armageddon, and so forth. Rest assured we were doing plenty for Israel that isn't public knowledge.

Anonymous Idle Spectator, 65 IQ October 26, 2013 11:25 PM  

"Jordan, which is the bigger threat to America, Iran or Mexico?"

Iran. Duh! I mean, without the wetbacks, who will pick our fruit, clean our beds, and cut our grass???

Idiot.

Anonymous 11B October 26, 2013 11:26 PM  

Operation Nickle Grass was an overt strategic airlift and operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. In a series of events that took place over 32 days, the Military Airlift Command of the U.S. Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of tanks, artillery, ammunition, and supplies in C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft between October 14 and November 14, 1973.[1] The U.S. support helped ensure that Israel survived a coordinated and surprise life-threatening attack from the Soviet-backed Arab Republic of Egypt and Syrian Arab Republic.

How were we rewarded?

Following a U.S. pledge of support on October 19, the oil-exporting Arab states within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) held to their previously declared warnings to use oil as a "weapon" and declared a complete oil embargo on the United States, and restrictions on other countries.

The oil shock of 1973 was our payment for helping Israel.

Anonymous 11B October 26, 2013 11:28 PM  

Iran. Duh! I mean, without the wetbacks, who will pick our fruit, clean our beds, and cut our grass???

Thank for setting me straight, Senator McCain

Blogger  Trust Ted get misled. Gamma secret kings reddit October 26, 2013 11:33 PM  

Edit: reference to mommyfurer was OT and its Vox's term, read it on AG. Hilarious.

Maybe to some degree the latest comments from Adelson are a diversion?

Talk radio is ruined by nonsense like this. From 6am to around 6or 9pm is all this endless n-conning the undiscerning listeners. I mean for Mormons, Irish RCC's and other American qypies the entire group of clowns hammer home more war.

Since war is what they crave, let all the wealthier people sink money into any mention of Iran being a threat to America or Israel, more importantly, let God run the show, As it is clear that the current host of clowns can barely function.

Anonymous Alexander October 26, 2013 11:40 PM  

I'd say Operation Nickle Grass counts as assistance in a 'material manner'.

But otherwise - yes - I apologize that the United States did not actively get involved in a direct ground war against Soviet client states on Israel's behalf.

Anonymous Idle Spectator, 65 IQ October 26, 2013 11:43 PM  

No problem, 11B. While in Yuma, pick me up some Romaine. I'm sure you and your boyzzz will be able to assume the 4 percent slack to GDP after forcibly removing any and all vestiges of the "brown scourge".

Anonymous 11B October 26, 2013 11:48 PM  

While in Yuma, pick me up some Romaine. I'm sure you and your boyzzz will be able to assume the 4 percent slack to GDP after forcibly removing any and all vestiges of the "brown scourge".

I thought the open borders guys were ideologically predisposed to being free traders. If the US farmers can't mechanize or pay the wages necessary to harvest their crop, American consumers should be able to purchase the crop from Mexico and other nations. Why should we have to subsidize these farmers?

Anonymous Idle Spectator, 65 IQ October 27, 2013 12:00 AM  

Let us be serious for a moment. Free trade? Please. It is all about protecting American agriculturists. The United States is a leading lettuce exporter and overall net exporter.

Do you really want to import your leafy greens and pay through the nose by having natives pick your Romaine instead of those "La Raza" hooligans?

So, Bugs Bunny, hop to it in the fields.

Anonymous Idle Spectator, 65 IQ October 27, 2013 12:05 AM  

Although, perhaps there is a solution. 11B, maybe you CAN work toward the ilk's goal of preventing America from being overrun by mud people. Meet the lettuce bot!

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/07/19/lettuce-bot

Blogger Whiskey October 27, 2013 1:54 AM  

No Obma is much worse. Iran says over and over and over they will nuke Israel. Israel will nuke Iran first to survive and so would you.

American hegemony meant no nuke proliferation. Remove vua Obama Pax Americana and you get 30 years war with nukes. Maybe 400 million global dead, many nuked cities.

Peace comes from strength. Not surrender.

Iran wants nukes, Russia helps to get oil at 200 a barrel.

And yes withdrawing hegemon ala Rome from Britain 419 means pagan invasion. Or Muslim. Swiss will have to nuke up ****** and use them****** to survive. After Rome left Britain was Pagan fr 400 years until Alfred the Great converted and you could argue Christisnity in Britain was irrevocably damaged and colored by Saxon paganism, I.e. English Christianity poorly adapted Odinism.

Blogger Whiskey October 27, 2013 2:10 AM  

Iran and Mexico are both threats, each different and flowing from weakness. It ******had been****** US policy since FDR to pritect Saudis in exchange for oil, Iran nukes end that USAToday reports Iran ay have bomb one month from now.

Iran nukes equal oil at 200 a barrel. Iranian oil minister said 150 is min floor Iran will accept, fudge it up fifty bucks at least. Global supply very tight no surlps margin. War iscoming, on worse possible terms bc US cannot keep internal peace oil that high. No can't frack our way out, that oil too costly and time consuming vs Saudi oil economical at below 20 bucks. See Venezuela.

Obama even weaker than Carter, who at least had Carter Dictrine US military supremacy in Gulf.

Sorry nook bad keyboard. Adelson wrong. Dropping bomb on desert useless and weak. Kill Iranian regime total strike only way for Israel to survive. Or about 96% Isrselus die in Iran surprise strike and Arab opportunistic attack.

Lesson, US won't fight, is useless as ally and nothing, a joke as enemy. Weakness begets attack at every turn

Blogger napari October 27, 2013 3:05 AM  

I happen to be pro Israel. I stand by my friends.
Whats fascinating is when I hear claim that America does Israels bidding through AIPAC and the neo-cons control America when clearly Israel wanted a military strike against ASSad's regime and America agreed to negotiations instead of military action.
The evidence and facts forgo the rhetoric each and every time.

Blogger napari October 27, 2013 3:22 AM  

Hello Vox Day,
I quote you:
First of all, Iran is not an American problem. If Israel genuinely believes such an act is necessary and justified, they have their own nukes. Second, how can this sort of irresponsible talk not increase the determination of the Iranians to get their own nuclear devices operational as soon as possible?

Is it fair to post one quote from an Israeli?
Over my lifetime many Arabs from different Arab countries have made wild allegations of annihilating and/or promising the destruction of Israel. These statements also are totally irresponsible and it would of been better to include both sides.
Its often said that if the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace but if Israel would lay down their weapons it would be destroyed.
Many Arabs agree.

Anonymous VD October 27, 2013 6:21 AM  

Is it fair to post one quote from an Israeli?

When the "Israeli" is a billionaire, a US citizen, and the chief financier of an American presidential candidate, yes, absolutely. Especially when the "Israeli" is a major player in the Israeli media. It is informative that you describe Adelson as an "Israeli" rather than an "American" or even a "dual-citizen".

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 27, 2013 7:41 AM  

"I happen to be pro Israel. I stand by my friends."

So... what branch of the IDF do you serve in?

Thought so.

Anonymous zen0 October 27, 2013 8:51 AM  


So... what branch of the IDF do you serve in?

Thought so.


You don't happen to be former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw by any chance, are you?

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 27, 2013 9:06 AM  

"British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw by any chance, are you?"


Scooby to Pluto, Scooby to Pluto. Request clarification. Over.

Anonymous Alexander October 27, 2013 9:50 AM  

What's absolutely remarkable is just how socially autistic the Jews are. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to make Muslims looks reasonable?

But one way to do it is to demand a third party put itself in the firing lane of global retaliation by nuking your enemy.

Anonymous zen0 October 27, 2013 12:09 PM  

Scooby to Pluto, Scooby to Pluto. Request clarification. Over.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/173240


I just thought while we were guessing ID's I would give it a shot.

Blogger Tom Kratman October 27, 2013 1:17 PM  

If that's what you meant, Scoob, fine, though it's not really what you said and absolutely not precisely what you said.

By the way, you did know, right, that the amount of radiation from a really big nuke is actually no more, and often rather less, than from an old style fission bomb, and that it decreases by about 90% every 24 hours. In short, it's not really going all that far, all that strongly.

Anonymous Gen. Kong October 27, 2013 1:17 PM  

Sheldon Adelson, owner of the US Republican Party - with 'moral' advice from Schmelly Botox, rabbi to the staaahs (and spiritual leader of Amurikan Churchianity).

Anonymous 11B October 27, 2013 1:17 PM  

That is interesting because Jack Straw is part Jewish.

Anonymous Gen. Kong October 27, 2013 1:23 PM  

Tom Kratman:
By the way, you did know, right, that the amount of radiation from a really big nuke is actually no more, and often rather less, than from an old style fission bomb, and that it decreases by about 90% every 24 hours. In short, it's not really going all that far, all that strongly.

I think you're correct about that. I recall reading that the Tsar-Bomba, despite is enormous size (50-mile blast radius), was relatively "clean" for a nuke in terms of longterm radioactivity.

Blogger Tom Kratman October 27, 2013 1:32 PM  

Alat, you missed at least a few: The Soviets in Afghanistan (invasion in 79, but continuing occupation within the last thirty years), Kuwait, by Iraq (You were aware, right, that the first invasion by us of Iraq was in response to that?), Iran, by Iraq, Lebanon by both Israel and Syria, FRY by Nato, Libya, by Nato, Iraq, on a small scale, by Turkey, South Korea by the Norks on a small scale. Then there was the Khargil War of 1999: you can decide who invaded whom based on who you think owns the area; me, I wouldn't bother.

Blogger Tom Kratman October 27, 2013 1:40 PM  

Nah, the blast radius for the 50 MT Tsar Bomba was "only" about 16 - 22 miles, depending on who you want to believe. Thermal damage radius was much more, of course, something over 40 miles. You can test it here: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

In addition to errors about radiation, people often use straight line projections for bomb effectiveness. Happily, no, if you want to know how effective a bomb is, use the square root for bombs greater than 1 MT or the cube root (vague recollection on the latter) for bombs less than 1 MT.

Anonymous Gen. Kong October 27, 2013 1:40 PM  

Whiskey:
Iran says over and over and over they will nuke Israel. Israel will nuke Iran first to survive and so would you.

The Mullahs who run Iran love to whip up the local twelvers with rabid Musloid talk of nuking the "little Satan" (Israel) and sometimes even "the Great Satan" (USSA). As with Repukes making promises to pro-lifers, they've been doing it for decades with great success. Like bread and circuses, it keeps the mob (the Persian street) distracted from what a shithole they live in. The Mullahs are likely aware of the fact that the little Satan has more nukes - deliverable directly to their mosque in an hour or so - than all the EUSSR.

Vox's point is correct. Any country which desires to remain free of the blood-funnels of the Banksta World Empire would be well-advised to obtain as many nukes as they could. They'd be insane not to.

Blogger Tom Kratman October 27, 2013 1:51 PM  

It's not quite that simple, either, GK. Small tac nukes, if they can manage to get them down to 155mm (We and the Sovs did, but it's not that easy), might go some distance towards mitigating their inability in conventaional warfare, but our retaliation for using them would be something frightful to behold. Without city busters, and a delivery system for those, tac nukes just don't get you very far. And, were we wise, we'd exterminate anybody new who tried to get both before they could. (Russia? One doubts that many of their work anymore, and I am pretty sure they don't know what will and what won't. That makes them fairly useless. China? Very limited capability. Others are mostly on our side.)

Blogger Jordan179 October 27, 2013 1:55 PM  

Eliza said:

Like other countries, say, Iceland, maybe Iran does not want to participate in certain banking methods.

The reasons why Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons, and why it is bad if Iran gets them, have absolutely nothing to do with banking methods -- save in the sense that banking, like most commerce, would be very negatively affected by even a small nuclear war. Iran is motivated by a combination of religious fanaticism and national pride, not by a fear of bankers. And America, Israel and many other countries are worried about Iran launching nuclear wars, far more than they are about whether Iran wants payment in American dollars, British pounds or for that matter Roman deniarii.

Blogger Jordan179 October 27, 2013 1:58 PM  

Josh asked:

Who started messing with whose business first?

Given that I can trace the conflicts there all the way back to Elam vs. Sumer in the 3rd millennium BCE, the question is inherently unanswerable. However, if you're talking about the current cycle of war, Iran did, by launching a war against the United States in 1979. From that point on, the violence has been interrupted only by occasional bouts of distraction.

Blogger Jordan179 October 27, 2013 2:03 PM  

Alexander said:

Gotta keep that military edge over the rock throwing goat herders.

Mesopotamia, and its bordering regions including Iran, are where warfare first got beyond the stage of "rock throwing goat herders," and did this as far back as the 3rd Millennium BC. Which is to say four to five thousand years ago.

Currently, Iran has a fully-modern military including ballistic and cruise missiles, attack jets inferior only to the best possessed by the Great Powers, powerful armor and artillery forces, and masses of mechanized infantry. The "rock throwing goat herders" constituting their armies exist only in your optimistic imagination.

Blogger Jordan179 October 27, 2013 2:05 PM  

Cheddarman said:

If Iran sells their oil in transaction that does not involve the U.S. dollar, they are our enemy and we will come up with an excuse to go to war with them.

You really believe that if Iran simply accepted, say, British pounds for oil but had not committed numerous acts of war against us, we would attack them? On what evidence do you make this assertion?

Are you aware of the meaning of the word "fungible" as it applies to international currency transactions? This is why such a motive for war would be utterly-absurd.

Blogger Jordan179 October 27, 2013 2:07 PM  

11B said:

Jordan, which is the bigger threat to America, Iran or Mexico?

Iran, by far.

Mexicans emigrate to America and ultimately make us stronger by assimilating into our culture and growing our economy. By contrast, armed attacks upon America, especially with weapons of mass destruction, have no upside.

Blogger Jordan179 October 27, 2013 2:09 PM  

11B said:

The oil shock of 1973 was our payment for helping Israel.

OPEC did this to us, not Israel. This is an argument for favoring Israel against OPEC, unless you believe that we should respond to being injured by licking the hand that strieks us.

Blogger Jordan179 October 27, 2013 2:10 PM  

LP said:

Since war is what they crave, let all the wealthier people sink money into any mention of Iran being a threat to America or Israel, more importantly, let God run the show, As it is clear that the current host of clowns can barely function.

You're assuming that the only way we will have war with Iran is if we attack Iran. What about the possibility of Iran attacking us? They have done so before, and they presumably will do so again.

Blogger Jordan179 October 27, 2013 2:13 PM  

Big Bill said:

I don't see Iran lobbing a nuke at us anymore than the Israelis do. With some 150-300 nukes and their Saudi Sunni allies's permission to overfly Saudi airspace and take the Iranian Shiites out whenever they want, Israel is in no more danger than we are.

Ah ... so in your opinion, if an Iranian nuclear weapon kills a million Americans or Israelis, we can simply retaliate and by retaliating restore our own dead to life? That's interesting -- just when did nukes acquire this impressive capability?

To put it plainly: have you ever stopped to think what it means if the Iranian leadership does not CARE if we kill them? Or worse -- wants us to do so, because they imagine that this will magically grant them victory?

Blogger napari October 27, 2013 2:36 PM  

I sit corrected on the fairness question.

I hope you folks wont be terribly disappointed to learn that I am French, an American citizen, and just an average person here in the USA.
The suspicions of me belonging to the IDF are stunning. Please take a chill pill and get a grip. No diabolical lots sorry.

Anonymous 11B October 27, 2013 3:02 PM  

Mexicans emigrate to America and ultimately make us stronger by assimilating into our culture and growing our economy. By contrast, armed attacks upon America, especially with weapons of mass destruction, have no upside.

We could not be further apart ideologically. As a believer in HBD, I cannot see the value of adding tens of millions of low IQ peasants to the ranks of a first world nation if that nation still seeks to remain a first world nation. If they are assimilating, then why is Spanish a De facto second language? Why do Presidential and other candidates now make Spanish language ads? My immigrants parents had to demonstrate the ability to understand English prior to being granted citizenship. Either this is no longer the case, or our vibrant newcomers are no longer assimilating.

Add to this the fact that those peasants are from a country on our border, which still has lingering claims to certain parts of our nation, and taking such large numbers of them doesn't seem to be wise. The accounts I've read from Victor Davis Hansen in the Central Valley should scare the hell out of Americans about what the future portends.

The Iranians don't scare me. In fact I am more concerned with Iranian and muslim immigration to the USA in general. If you really fear the Iranians, and presumably other muslims, then I'd hope you'd at least push to curtail that part of the immigration stream. If Iran and the muslim world is such a threat, why would we want to allow potential trouble into our nation?

OPEC did this to us, not Israel. This is an argument for favoring Israel against OPEC, unless you believe that we should respond to being injured by licking the hand that strieks us.

No, this is an argument for keeping out of other people's conflicts like our Founders warned. OPEC did this in retaliation for our taking sides in that conflict. The cost of that embargo on our economy should be added to the tally of direct aid we have provided Israel in calculating what our support of Israel has cost.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 27, 2013 3:09 PM  

"The suspicions of me belonging to the IDF are stunning."

And... this week's "The Point Sails Five Miles Overhead Award" goes to... napari.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 27, 2013 3:11 PM  

"Mexicans emigrate to America and ultimately make us stronger by assimilating into our culture and growing our economy."

You should come and visit America some day!

... And by the way, who's this "us" you're talking about?

Anonymous Gen. Kong October 27, 2013 3:16 PM  

Don't feed the troll, 11B. It might be Tad or Golf Pro or Beelzebub just cutting and pasting talking points from the Neo-Trotskyite Review, or some hack paid by Adelson.

By contrast, armed attacks upon America, especially with weapons of mass destruction, have no upside.

On the contrary, such an attack might vaporize a number of folks like Adelson or Troll179, which is absolutely pure upside.

Anonymous zen0 October 27, 2013 3:26 PM  

And... this week's "The Point Sails Five Miles Overhead Award" goes to... napari

You forgot to add " like a Josh Freeman forward pass". It is football day, after all.

Anonymous Idle Spectator, 65 IQ October 27, 2013 5:09 PM  

"I cannot see the value of adding tens of millions of low IQ peasants to the ranks of a first world nation if that nation still seeks to remain a first world nation. If they are assimilating, then why is Spanish a De facto second language? Why do Presidential and other candidates now make Spanish language ads? My immigrants parents had to demonstrate the ability to understand English prior to being granted citizenship. Either this is no longer the case, or our vibrant newcomers are no longer assimilating."

The same arguments were made when the Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Vietnamese all came to the United States at various points in our nation's history.

They are assimilating. They are "learning the King's English". Don't worry, there will still be white people living in America. How about that Romaine for my salad? I've been patiently waiting...

Anonymous 11B October 27, 2013 6:11 PM  

The same arguments were made when the Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Vietnamese all came to the United States at various points in our nation's history.

Almost as many Mexicans have come to the USA in the past 40 years as all the Irish, Germans, Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese COMBINED over the past 400 years.

I think we have enough Mexicans already..

How about that Romaine for my salad? I've been patiently waiting...

Senator McCain, are you offering $50 per hour?

Anonymous 11B October 27, 2013 6:16 PM  

The same arguments were made when the Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Vietnamese all came to the United States at various points in our nation's history.

They also had vast oceans separating them from their home countries which did not consider large parts of the United States theirs.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 27, 2013 6:20 PM  

"The same arguments were made when the Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Vietnamese all came to the United States at various points in our nation's history."

No they weren't. Arguments were made, to be sure, but not the same ones. You're an idiot.

Also, the past and the present are not identical. Again, you're an idiot.

It's idiots like you who have been allowed to make recent immigration policy. Well, idiots, and also malignant racist anti-white vampires. Good job, Renfield.

Anonymous DonReynolds October 27, 2013 6:27 PM  

11B said:

Jordan, which is the bigger threat to America, Iran or Mexico?

Jordan179...."Iran, by far.
Mexicans emigrate to America and ultimately make us stronger by assimilating into our culture and growing our economy. By contrast, armed attacks upon America, especially with weapons of mass destruction, have no upside."

Contrary to what you might believe, I have virtually no fear of Iran invading the USA or lobbing nukes into US cities.
I do have considerable anxiety about the FACT that my country is being invaded by low-life from Mexico, costing many billions of dollars in public expenditures, impacting the environment in many negative ways, creating shortages of water, adding to congestion in cities and roadways, and (by no means least) by their various crimes committed in this country......including an average of 25 American deaths every day. (Half due to drunk driving and the rest the old fashioned way....with knives, clubs, guns, hands and feet.) None of the Iranians, I know of, believe they have any claim to any of the fifty US states and none of them insist on US citizenship or to be able to vote in US elections.
You seem to like the idea that you have plenty of cheap labor to pick from. I suggest you GO to Mexico, where 90 percent of them live. You can hire them even cheaper. We do not need them at all.

Anonymous Scooby shat his big boy pants October 27, 2013 7:31 PM  

It looks like Don Reynolds inadvertently proved the point of Idle Spectator, 65 IQ
.

"No they weren't. Arguments were made, to be sure, but not the same ones. You're an idiot."

Binary thinking on your part. Nativists, regardless of time period, have opposed immigration for a host of factors--economic costs (e.g. job competition); social concerns (e.g. increased crime rates); environmental (e.g. loss of national identity).

Here is a history lesson for you. German-Americans in Wisconsin created their own schools. The Bennet Law was passed in 1889 to required the use of English, public or parochial. William Hoard, Republican governor, stated, "We must fight alienism and selfish ecclesiasticism...The parents, the pastors and the church have entered into a conspiracy to darken the understanding of the children, who are denied by cupidity and bigotry the privilege of even the free schools of the state. Despite widespread opposition of this law, Hoard continued to ridicule the Germans, claiming the state was the preferred guardian of their children than their parents or pastors!

This position--the exclusive use of English in public or private schools controlled by an immigrant group--is also advocated today. See Hispanics.


"Also, the past and the present are not identical. Again, you're an idiot."

Depending on the group, one or more of these reasons is the primary cause for disdain among nativists. For the Irish, it was their religion. For the Japanese, it was their alien culture. For the Vietnamese, it was their reliance on public assistance. Today, people object to the large influx of Mexicans due to a combination of those three factors I listed.

If you disagree, please provide counter evidence to disprove this assertion.

Anonymous News Flash: Moron Still Obsessed With Shit October 27, 2013 7:42 PM  

Wow, you can cherry-pick, over-generalize, and get things flat-out wrong, all in one spectacularly retarded comment.

I don't talk to coprophiliacs, much less treat them as intelligent opponents. Use a real moniker, or get bent.

Anonymous Scooby shat his big boy pants October 27, 2013 8:26 PM  

I am using a real moniker, it just happens to be at your expense! In other words, scoob, you just got intellectually destroyed and don't have the guts to admit it; rather, you take out your frustration gamma-style.

Anonymous cheddarman October 27, 2013 8:49 PM  

You really believe that if Iran simply accepted, say, British pounds for oil but had not committed numerous acts of war against us, we would attack them? On what evidence do you make this assertion? - Jordan 179

Our agression against Quadaffi, Syria, Venezuela and Iran, and anyone else who stands up to the American empire

besides jordan, We overthrew the democratically electred government of Iran in 1953 over oil, so stop the sanctimonius American exceptionalism crap

Anonymous News Flash: Arrogant Shit-Boy Boasts of False Victory October 27, 2013 9:16 PM  

Sounds like a certain asshole's never been to Texas. Many Germans were INVITED to settle the central parts of the country, as well as refugees from 1848. Some places, like your cherry-picked Wisconsin example, cracked down on the German language; in other places, like Indianapolis (read your Vonnegut for eye-witness account) and central Texas, German was spoken freely until the anti-German crackdown during World War I, by which time Germans had been settled in the US for several generations; the linguistic issue in most places was not an "immigrant" concern, but one of wartime hysteria. You're an idiot, and a boastful one, too; the best kind.

From the Fredericksburg, TX official visitor's website:

http://www.visitfredericksburgtx.com/media/faqs/

"Is German still spoken in Fredericksburg today?
With the city’s founding fathers from Germany, German was predominately spoken in Fredericksburg until the 1940s, although today English is the main language."

If you walk around Yorkville in upper-east-side Manhattan, and in many other Midwestern cities, you will see buildings whose cornices are marked "Turnverein", which is German for a gymnastics club, very popular well into the twentieth century, when many of these buildings were built.

As for the Chinese and Japanese, the principal complaint against them was that their work ethic was so determined and ferocious, that they would create a climate of competition so intense that no white American would ever be able to live at anything like ease in the country which his own people had built. Read your Stoddard, who cites the sources at length; I can't be bothered any further with an assclown like you.

Those are two examples, there are many, but like I say, No time for coprophiliacs. "Intellectually destroyed"? Like a famous writer once told me, "Stupid and arrogant is the funniest combination."

Don't bother replying to this, as I am done with you --- that is, unless you simply want to rage on, thinking you're insulting me by calling me letters from the Greek alphabet for some unknown reason.

Ciao, shit-boy.

Anonymous zen0 October 27, 2013 10:12 PM  

Idle Spectator, 65 IQ goes off the rails:

They are assimilating. They are "learning the King's English".

Got the stats to back that up? Many us gov sites if not all have Spanish translation.

Maybe you have become overenthusiastic?

If you want a comparison, look at Quebec. In the largest Spanish speaking areas there will be language laws, and it will not be in favor of the "Kings English".

Anonymous Scooby shat his big boy pants October 27, 2013 10:29 PM  

Note that you do not deny that, regardless of the time period, the reasons Americans opposed immigrants are similar in nature. Congratulations!

I take it Balaton is your favorite kind. I am well versed regarding your historical examples (imagine that, Americans who supported immigration--I wonder if that same sentiment is shared today???). Regardless of your outliers, you have yet to refute the GENERAL sentiment in America by nativists toward immigrants, in this case Germans, was one of utter disdain.

Germans may have been welcome by SOME Texans, but the fear of persecution loomed large. Joseph Biegel, who founded a settlement in Fayette County, wisely changed his last name to B-E-A-G-L-E; Adolph Douai was escorted out of New Braunfels settlement for his abolitionist stance (not surprising). Germans developed self-sufficient communities who could speak their language because it was expected they would remain on “their side of the tracks”.

Concerning Stoddard, his position still demonstrated utter contempt for “chinks” entering America's shores despite acknowledging their intellectual prowess and potential to supplant whites econonomically. Moreover, his work came well AFTER the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Gentlemen’s Agreement, two pieces of legislation that centered on the common held belief that Asians were ill-equipped to assimilate into American society.

Anonymous zen0 October 27, 2013 10:53 PM  

@ Scooby shat his big boy pants

Note that you do not deny that, regardless of the time period, the reasons Americans opposed immigrants are similar in nature. Congratulations!

Just to kind of clarify. Do you know the numbers of the various migrations you mention in terms of total population?

(full disclosure: my grandfather of German descent most likely died in a concentration camp in St. Louis in 1914.)

There is a difference between immigration and Migration.

Anonymous Phil Mann October 27, 2013 10:54 PM  

Advantage, scooby.

Anonymous Idle Spectator, 65 IQ October 27, 2013 10:56 PM  

"Got the stats to back that up?"

Here you go, Zero.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_76.htm#.Um3Q9iTaj9I

http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/mexican-migration-legalization-assimilation

Anonymous 11B October 27, 2013 11:21 PM  

@idle

I'll take the Cato link with a big grain of salt given their pro immigration positions.

But I do have a couple of questions. First, if people with average IQs under 90 do assimilate, is that really a positive in this day and age?

Second, if they are assimilating, then why the need for the government, both federal and state, to offer services in Spanish, such as voting and driver's licenses? Why the need for Presidential candidates to campaign with Spanish language ads on Spanish language media? I always thought immigrants had to demonstrate proficiency in English before being naturalized. If this is still the case, then why all need to cater to these "voters" in Spanish, if they are indeed assimilating?

Anonymous zen0 October 27, 2013 11:23 PM  

Here you go, Zero.

A quick scan shows a lot of talk about assimilation with absolutely no reference to language issues.

Shall I call you Idol Speculator from now on?

(jerkwad)

Anonymous zen0 October 27, 2013 11:35 PM  

11B points out: If this is still the case, then why all need to cater to these "voters" in Spanish, if they are indeed assimilating?

Exactly the issue Idol Speculator does not want to address, apparently. He was the one who made "Kings English" an issue, but he can't back it up with anything resembling reality.

We already have the Quebec example that he has not addressed.

I am very disappointed. I thought he had more mojo than this.

Anonymous zen0 October 27, 2013 11:55 PM  

And to sum up. I would rather live in a world where the Jews had nukes and the Muslims did not, because they are loonier than a can of smashed assholes.

Anonymous Still Chops October 28, 2013 2:19 AM  

IMAGINE all the People with their shiny nukes!! Whoo hoo hoooooo!

All we are saying is give nukes a chance...

We are the World! We are the irradiated,,

Anonymous Idle Spectator, 65 IQ October 28, 2013 7:55 AM  

"A quick scan shows a lot of talk about assimilation with absolutely no reference to language issues."

In the first source, the charts on civic and cultural progress provide the evidence. In the second source, it clearly referred to language acquisition by Mexicans.

You must be a public school graduate, zero.


"If this is still the case, then why all need to cater to these "voters" in Spanish, if they are indeed assimilating?"

The will of the people. Majority rules, dude.

Anonymous 11B October 28, 2013 1:21 PM  

"If this is still the case, then why all need to cater to these "voters" in Spanish, if they are indeed assimilating?"

The will of the people. Majority rules, dude.

First, how is 17 percent, which I believe Hispanics represent, a majority?

Second, we seem to have a disagreement on assimilation. From your answer your position seems to be that if a new culture comes to my country and decides impose its language, this is acceptable so long as it is done through majority rule. You might think that is assimilation, but it comes off more as something a conquering people might do. It is more similar to colonization than to assimilation.

Anonymous Idle Spectator, IQ 65 October 28, 2013 1:58 PM  

"First, how is 17 percent, which I believe Hispanics represent, a majority?"

Throughout America's glorious history, immigrants have come to our country. U.S. citizens, while perhaps questioning who came in and why they came in, have generally supported this phenomenon as a majority.


"From your answer your position seems to be that if a new culture comes to my country and decides impose its language"

First, its OUR country, not MY. Second, waves and waves of immigrants have contributed, not imposed, its customs on the American landscape, as even Scoobs has noted. Third, look up the world "conquer"--overcome and take control of (a place or people) by a force of arms. The disagreement stems over whether immigrants coming here are indeed "using force" to supplant the dominant culture, although legislation enables foreigners to come here through legitimate means. Fourth, it would seem to me that those who "colonized" and "conquered" were Europeans in the traditional sense.

Regardless, our country's demographics will change. I suggest you deal with it, or move.

Anonymous 11B October 28, 2013 5:16 PM  

Throughout America's glorious history, immigrants have come to our country. U.S. citizens, while perhaps questioning who came in and why they came in, have generally supported this phenomenon as a majority.

No they have not. The First Naturalization Act of 1790, written by the First Congress and signed into law by the Founder of our nation, was explicit and very restrictive in who could be naturalized.

The Immigration Act of 1924 was also very restrictive.

Those are but two of many examples.

The US has historically scrutinized its immigrants. It was mainly after Emanuel Celler's Immigration Act of 1965 that the doors were blown wide open.

Regardless, our country's demographics will change. I suggest you deal with it, or move.

I agree. But at least you've dropped the pretense that they are assimilating.

Anonymous Idle Spectator, IQ 65 October 28, 2013 8:25 PM  

The First Naturalization Act of 1790 indeed was "restrictive" in that it desired "free white persons" of "good moral character" to enter America. Please note that these requirements easily met, and hundreds of thousands made their way to our shores.

The Immigration Act of 1924 was more restrictive due to nativist sentiment against southern and eastern Europeans. However, Western Hemispherean immigration was unfettered.

Of course, you conveniently leave out the years in between, when millions of immigrants from throughout the world set foot into America...and learned our language and customs. No different than the "wetbacks" and "chinks" of today.

Try better next time!


"But at least you've dropped the pretense that they are assimilating."

You must be one of the little pigs who built their house with straw!

Anonymous 11B October 28, 2013 10:49 PM  

Of course, you conveniently leave out the years in between, when millions of immigrants from throughout the world set foot into America...

From 1609 until 1958, roughly 42 million immigrants, overwhelmingly European, came to what is the United States. From 1965 to the present, we've had around 50 million immigrants, overwhelmingly non-European, come and continue to come to the United States.

When is enough, enough?

learned our language and customs. No different than the "wetbacks" and "chinks" of today.

Not really. You still haven't provided any justification for making Spanish a De facto second language of the USA, other than to suggest "majority rule", which by my calculations has not occurred yet. I suppose if we were in the year 2060, maybe that might be the case. But even if we had majority rule on this issue, that doesn't appear to a sign that these immigrants are assimilating. My parents learned English and never taught me a word of their native tongue. I guess I figured all immigrants did the same. I was wrong.

You must be one of the little pigs who built their house with straw!

Actually I was enjoying our little exchange. I am sorry you feel the need for such language. I do not consider myself a pig. I consider myself a person who does not wish to have his culture changed relatively overnight especially without the consent of the majority of Americans..

I do not look forward to the USA hitting 4 to 5 hundred million people. I don't like the idea of my vote being watered down even more than it already is.

I also would like to keep our high standard of living and am concerned that adding too many people that cannot assimilate to a first world nation has too many potential risks.

I am also concerned that taking in so many people from a nation which shares a border, and has lingering claims to our territory, has too much negative potential. I see what happened to the Serbs in Kosovo after unchecked Albanian immigration. I see what happened to Mexico when a culturally distinct people settled parts of its territory in the 1830s. What makes people think things will be different in America in the twenty-first century escapes me.

Anyways, it is time to move on. Vox has posted several newer posts, and we have strayed way off topic. Hopefully Vox will start a new post on immigration and we, as well as others, can flesh out some arguments.

Anonymous Idle Spectator, 65 IQ October 29, 2013 12:51 AM  

"You still haven't provided any justification for making Spanish a De facto second language of the USA."

YOUR position, not mine. English is being taught and learned by immigrants. The sources I provided bore that fact out. Now, whether it is to your preference is another story. Moreover, according to libertarianism, freedom of association means those living in areas with large Hispanic populations are able to decide what language or languages will be spoken and/or presented in public.


"I do not look forward to the USA hitting 4 to 5 hundred million people. I don't like the idea of my vote being watered down even more than it already is."

We AGREE!


"m concerned that adding too many people that cannot assimilate to a first world nation..."

And that is where you fall woefully short. People who come to America can and will assimilate.


"What makes people think things will be different in America in the twenty-first century escapes me."

Because we have a distinct history of people being able to blend in AND be distinct simultaneously.


"I do not consider myself a pig."

Chill, dude. It was a reference to the three little pigs. You know, the children's story. Whatever.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts