I want to provide some additional evidence to bolster my claims about Iran and their fictitious Nuclear weapons program.

Here is an excellent interview with Gareth Porter on the subject.  This was published in The American Conservative:

QuoteWhat do most of us really know about the Iranian nuclear program? After a decade of hearing that Iran is just one year from getting the bomb, and that its leaders are radically bent on the destruction of Israel and its Western allies, no one could be blamed for thinking that Iran really wants (or already has) atomic weapons.

Gareth Porter knows the narrative. He has worked tirelessly to pursue the truth of the matter. His conclusion: Iran never had a nuclear weapons program and, frankly, it doesn't want one.

Can he prove it? Well he's got 300 pages representing at least six years worth of work to try to get you over to his side. Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, published this year by Just World Books, is not just some ham-fisted polemic. It's a journalist's read: dense with interviews, reports, citations, notes. He finds obscure sources that would otherwise be lost to history. He pokes holes in unquestioned news stories, and exposes what he believes is an orchestrated campaign by the U.S. and its ally, Israel, dating back to the 1979 Islamic revolution, to prevent Iran from developing a non-weaponized nuclear power program.

His conclusions fly in the face of nearly every establishment view on the subject, from the neoconservative hawks to the liberal humanitarians that inhabit the Democratic Party in Washington. Porter's position, no matter now doggedly researched, is anathema to current Middle East policy.

Of course, he's not the only one to reach this conclusion. Paul Pillar, a National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East between 2000 and 2005, tells TAC that Porter is on the right track. "All indications are that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon," he said in an e-mail. "Gareth Porter's book provides a useful service in demonstrating that common worse-case assumptions about Iranian motivations and objectives are invalid."
.

Four paragraphs or text not exceeding 200 words is considered fair usage.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2016, 01:48:27 PM
I want to provide some additional evidence to bolster my claims about Iran and their fictitious Nuclear weapons program.

Here is an excellent interview with Gareth Porter on the subject.  This was published in The American Conservative:



Four paragraphs or text not exceeding 200 words is considered fair usage.

You really believe that horseshit? Iran is sitting on Billions of barrels of Oil and they want to develop nuclear energy????
Yeah, right, I got some Ocean front Property in Nevada I want to sell you....cheap.

Simply put, I don;t believe Iran, I don't believe these people making these claims and to place any amount of trust in such is a fools errand.

Iran has time and again demonstrated aggression towards the US, Israel, various Gulf state nations, they have armed terrorists, financed terrorism, killed American troops in Iraq, previously tampered with our economy smuggling billions of dollars worth of counterfeit bills into our system so that we had to totally redesign our money. Conspired with Venezuela's arch Fiend Hugo Chavez selling him arms to foolishly threatened his neighbors and the USA with and on and on and on. Wake Up, Wise up and remain alert.

If you really want to scale spending down lets stop giving aide money to the Palestinians to buy rockets etc from Iran, that's just one country to begin with, Pakistan and Turkey need to watch their asses too.

You want all nations to disarm...great....you think you are going to get Russia to do that? Where would the weapons go?
The last time those asshole's "disarmed" the Former Soviet union flooded the black market with their obsolete systems.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2016, 01:23:08 PM
I'm an anarchist, remember?  I don't think anyone should be paying taxes.  What I mean by "Corporate welfare" are subsidies, favorable regulations which distort the market in favor of a politically-connected elite and no-bid government contracts.  If the government grants tax breaks to businessmen and corporations, that is all to the good.  Taxes should be lowered for everyone.

Are you aware that Russia has the Gross National Product of Italy?  They have a large stockpile of Nuclear Weapons, and a reasonably large military but they are FAR from the sort of dangerous nation that the Right seem to think they are.

Are you arguing that the United States needs to maintain bases in 170 countries around the world and "project strength" through the maintenance of a world empire because if we didn't, someone else might?  Is that your argument?

Did not say that at all, what I said was somebody is going to be the worlds policeman, that is a role we should not nor do our allies want us to give up.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2016, 01:23:08 PMAny country or non-State terrorist group might threaten our safety in the future.  Whether we have a State or are living in a State-less society, we'd want to make sure that we have adequate security and adequate intelligence to protect ourselves against potential threats.  It clearly does NOT enhance our national security to maintain bases around the world and intervene into the affairs of other countries.

You are correct any group can threaten us or invade in the future, that's why it is not a good idea to cut the military and rely on a "private army" that will only answer to the rich person who is paying them

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2016, 01:23:08 PMIf we merely pursue peace, commerce and honest friendship with others but have entangling alliances with none, as the Founders advocated, then we would foster more harmony among other nations and ourselves.  By maintaining an empire and "projecting strength", we generate resentment which manifests in the growth of terrorism and the further buildup of the militaries in other nations who see us as a threat to their security.


I proposed that we could immediately cut the military budget by 50% without reducing our ability to defend ourselves one bit.  Do you agree with this or not?no

For whatever reason, you seem to think that nearly all of this money is worth it if only to prove that we're tough to the rest of the world by having such a massive and extravagant military.

A majority of this money is spent in ways that weaken us rather than strengthen us.

Once again, never said that. To put it another way, to use an old saying: if you want peace, prepare for war. Having the best military in the world is a great deterrent against invasion.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2016, 01:23:08 PMHere is a concrete example.  Lockheed Martin has built an aircraft that is completely useless.  It doesn't work, the military doesn't need it and it has cost an estimated 2 Trillion dollars.  That is not a typo.  A single worthless aircraft has cost the US government two trillion dollars.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/lockheed-martins-f-35-lightning-ii-boondoggle-a-2-trillion-pentagon-waste/5504849

This is precisely what the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about produces.  Unimaginable waste and fraud.

When fraud is found it needs to be cut out, but that is not a argument for cutting 50%

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2016, 01:23:08 PMAs for private armies in the market, the consumers would police the military.  The consumers would pay their salaries voluntarily after all.  I would imagine that an armed, private militia would emerge.  Like in Switzerland, military age males would agree to defend the society in battle if they were ever to be invaded or attacked by a foreign army.  Maybe young men would learn basic skills in owning, operating and maintaining firearms in case of such an event.

Then I'd imagine that private entrepreneurs would maintain small but nimble stockpiles of heavy duty weapons, insured on the private market of course, to be deployed if they were ever truly needed.  Their salaries would be paid by communities who valued the safety and security they would provide.  99% of the time, their existence and maintenance would be an insurance policy and they would not be deployed in combat around the world.

Furthermore, security agencies would have the incentive to work out innovative ways to keep the peace and AVOID international conflicts and military battles.  Different avenues for diplomacy would be pursued since peaceful solutions are better for a society than expensive and deadly military confrontations.

Again, who would police this group of vigilantes? You propose we pay a army who answers to the rich who are paying them. Your whole argument here is based off assumptions that if we are invaded we would be able to scrape together an army to protect us. You are willing to destroy our armed forces for this?

Why is jrodefeld still here?

Quote from: supsalemgr on September 22, 2016, 04:29:34 AM
Why is jrodefeld still here?

Entertainment? Actually I have learned that if all libertarian's think like he does, or if his thinking is a decent representative of the the party, then I don't care to have anything to do with them. They would hurt the military more than obama did, if that is possible.  Saved me the time that would have been spent checking them out.

Quote from: s3779m on September 22, 2016, 05:38:12 AM
Entertainment? Actually I have learned that if all libertarian's think like he does, or if his thinking is a decent representative of the the party, then I don't care to have anything to do with them. They would hurt the military more than obama did, if that is possible.  Saved me the time that would have been spent checking them out.

That's more or less why I left it to hardier souls like you to dissect his spiel.

Now that you've chewed him like a dog's hard-biscuit, can I now hear your second for the motion from the floor, by old sup there?

Quote from: s3779m on September 22, 2016, 05:38:12 AM
Entertainment? Actually I have learned that if all libertarian's think like he does, or if his thinking is a decent representative of the the party, then I don't care to have anything to do with them. They would hurt the military more than obama did, if that is possible.  Saved me the time that would have been spent checking them out.

Out of curiosity, can you explain how Obama "hurt" the military?  I hear this all the time from the Right.  Our military has been "gutted", we need to "rebuild" our military, etc.

The truth of the matter is that military spending has continued to grow every year of Obama's presidency. 

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.  By the way, I'm "still here" because I like to see what different ideological groups tend to think about a variety of subjects.  Maybe you'll learn a little bit about libertarian thought and I'll learn something about conservatism.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 09:04:53 AM

The truth of the matter is that military spending has continued to grow every year of Obama's presidency. 

Really? Then there was no sequester for the military? Correctamundo?

Other ways the military was hurt:

Rules of engagement: which ties our military's hands

A 1.8% pay raise.

Furthermore, I fail to see how you cannot understand the link between military spending, war and the growth of government domestically.  I've heard many of you describe yourselves as "Constitutional Conservatives".  How can you reduce government to it's Constitutionally limited size and scope if you cannot fathom significant cuts to military spending?

Since George W. Bush declared a "war on terror", look at the growth of the Federal government.  Under the pretext of protecting us from terrorism, we've witnessed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the passage of the Patriot Act and unprecedented domestic surveillance.  Furthermore, we've seen the militarization of our local police, expanded SWAT raids of domestic homes, extra-judicial executions of American citizens and so many more direct assaults on our civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.

The primary reason they were able to get away with this massive growth of government is that they convinced us that terrorism represents a grave existential threat to our very way of life and we need to sacrifice some of our liberties in order to maintain safety.

I have a couple of simple questions.

Do you describe yourself as a Constitutional Conservative?

If I'm interpreting this position correctly, it would mean that you think we need to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government until it does only those functions expressly delegated in the Constitution.  In other words, you believe in "original intent", rather than in the Progressive notion of a "living, breathing Constitution" that can be re-interpreted to permit any government action. 

Is this a coherent articulation of your views generally?


Then why do you arbitrarily eschew the founders advice to avoid entangling alliances and avoid going abroad "in search of monsters to destroy"?

If you're claim is that the world is much more different than it was in the founders time which requires a vastly different foreign policy, isn't this exactly what the Progressives argue when they try to justify ignoring other parts of the Constitution?

Progressives who argue for gun control say that the founders could not have envisioned the type of "assault" weapons we currently have, so we need to disregard the Second Amendment.  How can you oppose this position coherently if you argue the same thing regarding foreign policy?


Furthermore, it has long been a stated tactic of Big Government Conservatives to distract the conservative base with a purported foreign enemy so they don't focus on cutting government at home, but instead expanding government abroad in the name of safety and security.  William F. Buckley made this very argument during the Cold War.  He criticized the Old Right for their "isolationism" and their opposition to FDR's New Deal and instead argued that they should put aside their calls for repeal of big government to focus on an arms buildup to defeat the Soviet menace.

You cannot simultaneously believe in small government AND believe in the sort of military spending, world empire and interventionist foreign policy that you seem to support.

These are mutually exclusive positions that cannot coexist.


I'm fascinated by this apparent cognitive dissonance.  I'd like to have an honest discussion with ya'll about this. 

Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 22, 2016, 09:20:21 AM
Really? Then there was no sequester for the military? Correctamundo?

Other ways the military was hurt:

Rules of engagement: which ties our military's hands

A 1.8% pay raise.

The argument of sequestration as regards to military spending was a fake one.  The proposed "cuts" were merely cuts to the proposed increases in the budget.  For example, if the military wanted an increased budget of $80 billion dollars in the next year, and the Congress only permitted an increase of $60 billion dollars, they would call that a "cut" in spending.  In actuality, they are getting a massive increase in their budget, just not quite as massive as they would like.

Here is a link that gives a bit more detail on this:

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/12/10/military-budget-deal-skips-sequestration-erases-22-billion-in-cuts/

You should know about this government double-speak.  Every normal person would regard a cut in spending as a reduction in total spending from the previous year.  Yet the government calls a huge increase in spending a "cut" if it is not quite as massive an increase as they would have liked.


As far as "rules of engagement" you'll have to be more specific as you what you are referring to.  If you mean rules which attempt to limit the number of war crimes we allow our soldiers to commit, how are such limitations problematic?  Surely you don't support war crimes, torture, and the murder of civilians?

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 09:34:44 AM
Furthermore, I fail to see how you cannot understand the link between military spending, war and the growth of government domestically.  I've heard many of you describe yourselves as "Constitutional Conservatives".  How can you reduce government to it's Constitutionally limited size and scope if you cannot fathom significant cuts to military spending?

Since George W. Bush declared a "war on terror", look at the growth of the Federal government.  Under the pretext of protecting us from terrorism, we've witnessed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the passage of the Patriot Act and unprecedented domestic surveillance.  Furthermore, we've seen the militarization of our local police, expanded SWAT raids of domestic homes, extra-judicial executions of American citizens and so many more direct assaults on our civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.

The primary reason they were able to get away with this massive growth of government is that they convinced us that terrorism represents a grave existential threat to our very way of life and we need to sacrifice some of our liberties in order to maintain safety.

I have a couple of simple questions.

Do you describe yourself as a Constitutional Conservative?

If I'm interpreting this position correctly, it would mean that you think we need to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government until it does only those functions expressly delegated in the Constitution.  In other words, you believe in "original intent", rather than in the Progressive notion of a "living, breathing Constitution" that can be re-interpreted to permit any government action. 

Is this a coherent articulation of your views generally?


Then why do you arbitrarily eschew the founders advice to avoid entangling alliances and avoid going abroad "in search of monsters to destroy"?

If you're claim is that the world is much more different than it was in the founders time which requires a vastly different foreign policy, isn't this exactly what the Progressives argue when they try to justify ignoring other parts of the Constitution?

Progressives who argue for gun control say that the founders could not have envisioned the type of "assault" weapons we currently have, so we need to disregard the Second Amendment.  How can you oppose this position coherently if you argue the same thing regarding foreign policy?


Furthermore, it has long been a stated tactic of Big Government Conservatives to distract the conservative base with a purported foreign enemy so they don't focus on cutting government at home, but instead expanding government abroad in the name of safety and security.  William F. Buckley made this very argument during the Cold War.  He criticized the Old Right for their "isolationism" and their opposition to FDR's New Deal and instead argued that they should put aside their calls for repeal of big government to focus on an arms buildup to defeat the Soviet menace.

You cannot simultaneously believe in small government AND believe in the sort of military spending, world empire and interventionist foreign policy that you seem to support.

These are mutually exclusive positions that cannot coexist.


I'm fascinated by this apparent cognitive dissonance.  I'd like to have an honest discussion with ya'll about this.

I have a friend who was a ranger. He tells the story of a guy who used to go out of his house every day and spray the passing convoy with bullets, then he'd drop his weapon, making him unarmed. No further action could be taken against the aggressor.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 09:44:40 AM
The argument of sequestration as regards to military spending was a fake one.  The proposed "cuts" were merely cuts to the proposed increases in the budget.  For example, if the military wanted an increased budget of $80 billion dollars in the next year, and the Congress only permitted an increase of $60 billion dollars, they would call that a "cut" in spending.  In actuality, they are getting a massive increase in their budget, just not quite as massive as they would like.

Here is a link that gives a bit more detail on this:

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/12/10/military-budget-deal-skips-sequestration-erases-22-billion-in-cuts/

You should know about this government double-speak.  Every normal person would regard a cut in spending as a reduction in total spending from the previous year.  Yet the government calls a huge increase in spending a "cut" if it is not quite as massive an increase as they would have liked.


As far as "rules of engagement" you'll have to be more specific as you what you are referring to.  If you mean rules which attempt to limit the number of war crimes we allow our soldiers to commit, how are such limitations problematic?  Surely you don't support war crimes, torture, and the murder of civilians?

Your liberalism is showing.

Your presuming soldiers will commit war crimes before they do.

You were talking about cognitive dissonance earlier. Isn't a contradiction to presume soldiers will commit war crimes, yet a volunteer police force will be honest and just?

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 09:34:44 AM
Furthermore, I fail to see how you cannot understand the link between military spending, war and the growth of government domestically.  I've heard many of you describe yourselves as "Constitutional Conservatives".  How can you reduce government to it's Constitutionally limited size and scope if you cannot fathom significant cuts to military spending?

Since George W. Bush declared a "war on terror", look at the growth of the Federal government.  Under the pretext of protecting us from terrorism, we've witnessed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the passage of the Patriot Act and unprecedented domestic surveillance.  Furthermore, we've seen the militarization of our local police, expanded SWAT raids of domestic homes, extra-judicial executions of American citizens and so many more direct assaults on our civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.

The primary reason they were able to get away with this massive growth of government is that they convinced us that terrorism represents a grave existential threat to our very way of life and we need to sacrifice some of our liberties in order to maintain safety.

I have a couple of simple questions.

Do you describe yourself as a Constitutional Conservative?

If I'm interpreting this position correctly, it would mean that you think we need to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government until it does only those functions expressly delegated in the Constitution.  In other words, you believe in "original intent", rather than in the Progressive notion of a "living, breathing Constitution" that can be re-interpreted to permit any government action. 

Is this a coherent articulation of your views generally?


Then why do you arbitrarily eschew the founders advice to avoid entangling alliances and avoid going abroad "in search of monsters to destroy"?

If you're claim is that the world is much more different than it was in the founders time which requires a vastly different foreign policy, isn't this exactly what the Progressives argue when they try to justify ignoring other parts of the Constitution?

Progressives who argue for gun control say that the founders could not have envisioned the type of "assault" weapons we currently have, so we need to disregard the Second Amendment.  How can you oppose this position coherently if you argue the same thing regarding foreign policy?


Furthermore, it has long been a stated tactic of Big Government Conservatives to distract the conservative base with a purported foreign enemy so they don't focus on cutting government at home, but instead expanding government abroad in the name of safety and security.  William F. Buckley made this very argument during the Cold War.  He criticized the Old Right for their "isolationism" and their opposition to FDR's New Deal and instead argued that they should put aside their calls for repeal of big government to focus on an arms buildup to defeat the Soviet menace.

You cannot simultaneously believe in small government AND believe in the sort of military spending, world empire and interventionist foreign policy that you seem to support.

These are mutually exclusive positions that cannot coexist.


I'm fascinated by this apparent cognitive dissonance.  I'd like to have an honest discussion with ya'll about this.

jrodefeld
Cover one or two subjects per post.  More people will not take the time and read long posts, or answer long posts.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 09:34:44 AM
If you're claim is that the world is much more different than it was in the founders time which requires a vastly different foreign policy, isn't this exactly what the Progressives argue when they try to justify ignoring other parts of the Constitution?

Progressives who argue for gun control say that the founders could not have envisioned the type of "assault" weapons we currently have, so we need to disregard the Second Amendment.  How can you oppose this position coherently if you argue the same thing regarding foreign policy?


I'm fascinated by this apparent cognitive dissonance.  I'd like to have an honest discussion with ya'll about this.

The founders haad an answer to the world is a much different place issue---it's called amending the Consitution.

Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 22, 2016, 09:58:36 AM
Your liberalism is showing.

Your presuming soldiers will commit war crimes before they do.

You were talking about cognitive dissonance earlier. Isn't a contradiction to presume soldiers will commit war crimes, yet a volunteer police force will be honest and just?

I'm not presuming anything.  I'm trying to figure out what you meant when you said:  "Rules of engagement: which ties our military's hands".

From my brief searching, the only Rules of Engagement reform proposals I've found simply attempted to prevent our soldiers from committing war crimes.  And you seem to be objecting to such reforms. 

But let's get one thing clear up front.  The entire invasion of Iraq was a war crime.  Iraq did not threaten the security of the United States, so our invasion of that country was an act of aggression.

Even many veterans were appalled at what US soldiers were permitted or even encouraged to do during that war.

http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=12536

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june08-witnesses_05-21/


If you actually elaborated on what you meant by your statement, I could respond in a clearer way.