'The War Is Not Over'

'The War Is Not Over'

There are 276627 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Sep 12, 2006, titled 'The War Is Not Over'. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

WASHINGTON - President Bush led the nation on Monday in marking the fifth anniversary of the Sept.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#287627 May 4, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
A common human being - compared to what?
Compared to any other human being. As humans they are same. In knowledge and status, there is no comparison.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#287628 May 4, 2013
News you will not see or hear on CNN and FOX News

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

Weighing a Possible War on Iran

As neocons mount a last-ditch offensive to stop Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary – partly because he isn’t hawkish enough on Iran – the war drums are beating again across Official Washington, drowning out any thoughtful cost-benefit analysis, as ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar explains.

By Paul R. Pillar

February 15, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - One of the most oft-repeated, widely accepted and habitually unquestioned beliefs about the Iranian nuclear issue is that if Iran got a nuclear weapon then Tehran would — merely by possessing such a weapon, even if it never detonated one — throw its weight around in the region in ways that it wouldn’t or couldn’t do without a nuke.

A nuclear-armed Iran, according to the belief, would coerce and influence neighbors in untold ways we are not seeing now from a non-nuclear-armed Iran. This belief is shared by a wide variety of people who disagree on other aspects of Iran and its nuclear program.

It is held by many people who are firmly committed to using diplomacy to resolve differences with Iran, as well as by people who are itching to launch a war against it. It is held by many people who reject the notion that Iranian leaders are mad mullahs who would nuke Tel Aviv at the first opportunity, as well as by people who peddle some version of that notion.

It is remarkable how a belief that has come to play such a major part in discussion about an issue as prominent as the Iranian nuclear issue has been so automatically accepted and so infrequently examined or questioned. Probably the most prominent questioning of it was in a short piece last year in Foreign Affairs by Kenneth Waltz.

But Waltz, despite his long-established reputation as an eminent political scientist, has been preemptively pigeon-holed on this issue as an outlier. He had long ago argued, without specific reference to Iran, that the spread of nuclear weapons has been more of a stabilizing than a de-stabilizing force.

His piece on Iran is titled “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.” So, sort of like George Ball in his devil’s advocate role regarding the Vietnam War, Waltz with his argument on Iran has been treated as someone to be politely acknowledged but safely dismissed.

A few others have questioned the belief about Iranian nuclear coercion, bucking its entrenched status in the conventional wisdom. I did so a year ago, pointing out how the belief simply does not hold water when well-honed doctrine from the Cold War about nuclear weapons and influence is applied to it. Stephen Walt has also shot down the belief, reviewing how the history of nuclear weapons and attempts at coercion simply does not support it.

And yet the image of Iranian nuclear extortion continues to prevail, probably in large part because for most people it seems to make intuitive sense that ownership of something as awesome as a nuclear weapon ought to have a significant effect on the owner’s international relations.

Those still stuck in the intuitive mode ought to consider the findings of a study reported in the current issue of International Organization by Todd Sechser of the University of Virginia and Matthew Fuhrmann of Texas A&M. Their study is partly a rigorous quantitative version of what Walt did, as an examination of the historical record of attempts at coercion.

They used a comprehensive database covering both nuclear and non-nuclear would-be coercers and spanning the entire nuclear age and more. Their finding: possession of nuclear weapons does not help in coercing other states. This is true whether or not explicit threats to use the weapons are made (they seldom are).

MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#287629 May 4, 2013
Contd.

Sechser and Fuhrmann accompany their quantitative results with the key analytical points that explain those results. Nuclear weapons are great for deterring a catastrophic action — one that would extinguish one’s regime. But they are not very useful in imposing one’s will regarding other matters.

They are less useful for that latter purpose mostly for reasons examined many years ago by Thomas Schelling when he contrasted deterrence with — his newly coined word — compellence. It is very difficult to threaten credibly the use of nuclear weapons to coerce change to a situation that the threatener has already been living with. And the very awesomeness of nuclear weapons means great costs to anyone who uses them, even if the use does not start a full-scale nuclear war.

Given the stakes involved in the Iranian nuclear matter — with talk still out there about the “military option”— it is irresponsible for so many people who talk about the subject to be relying on intuition rather than on analysis and the historical record.

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies. This article first appeared as a blog post - Via Consortioum News
Hot doggie

Okeechobee, FL

#287631 May 4, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
A common human being - compared to what?
Doctor Spock
Hot doggie

Okeechobee, FL

#287632 May 4, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
If I were a betting man my money would be on asteroids and meteors...
i like comets too
henry

Germany

#287633 May 4, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently I am ignorant to your version of communism...so are you saying that Communist Russia, Communist China and Communist Cuba are all fakes? By all means educate me...what is your version of communism?
Communism is not yet in reality in the world.
henry

Germany

#287635 May 4, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently I am ignorant to your version of communism...so are you saying that Communist Russia, Communist China and Communist Cuba are all fakes? By all means educate me...what is your version of communism?
Communism is not yet installed. It is of course not my "Version". Fukushima is not the way to get communism but the way capitalism is to commit suicide in a nuclear Inferno. We have present some 500 AKWs in the world and Fukushima is not the last heavy accident.
henry

Germany

#287636 May 4, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently I am ignorant to your version of communism...so are you saying that Communist Russia, Communist China and Communist Cuba are all fakes? By all means educate me...what is your version of communism?
It took capitalism centuries to install its System worldwide, but now in the nuclear Age capitalism is in the nuclear Desaster, which presumably turns humanity to an end. So communism will not any more enter the world Theater.
henry

Germany

#287637 May 4, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently I am ignorant to your version of communism...so are you saying that Communist Russia, Communist China and Communist Cuba are all fakes? By all means educate me...what is your version of communism?
People are indoctrinated by the capitalist Mainstream medias, they (many People) know of course not the realities. I do not have a "Version" of communism. "Fakes" are made by the above Mainstreams 24 hours a day.
henry

Germany

#287638 May 4, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
If I were a betting man my money would be on asteroids and meteors...
I think it is sufficient to bet your Money on the next series of nuclear Desasters.
henry

Germany

#287639 May 4, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
I do disagree with you though...you know, aboooot the we'll never know part...obviously we do know...
Well, take a short view on the grandios outlook of the not so far nuclear future.
henry

Germany

#287640 May 4, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently I am ignorant to your version of communism...so are you saying that Communist Russia, Communist China and Communist Cuba are all fakes? By all means educate me...what is your version of communism?
I agree the "Version" of a nuclear Desaster is "positive".(Irony)
henry

Germany

#287641 May 4, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently I am ignorant to your version of communism...so are you saying that Communist Russia, Communist China and Communist Cuba are all fakes? By all means educate me...what is your version of communism?
"By all means" my "Version" is a nuclear Inferno. So don`t worry about communism.
henry

Bad Tennstedt, Germany

#287642 May 5, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Don’t equate totalitarian socialist regimes with Communism, the whole "dictatorship of the proletariat" thing was only meant to be a temporary stage, to force the destruction of the last vestiges of Capitalism and capitalist thoughts, and then the State was to be dissolved. We will never know, but Marx's grand failure is believing that the state would surrender power to dissolve itself – perhaps Marx was really a comedian?
Ask Kreml astrologists they know better.
henry

Bad Tennstedt, Germany

#287643 May 5, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you are saying is that the system that the USSR had and China had wasn't really communism? So what about the system currently in Cuba...would you consider that model communism?
Communism may not come at all, since capitalism in the nuclear Age is driving at the end of mankind.
henry

Bad Tennstedt, Germany

#287644 May 5, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently I am ignorant to your version of communism...so are you saying that Communist Russia, Communist China and Communist Cuba are all fakes? By all means educate me...what is your version of communism?
Perhaps communism since capitalism on its way to the atomar Inferno, is "saving" humanity perhaps communism but not the death of mankind.
Gudude

Pittsburgh, PA

#287645 May 5, 2013
youtube.com/watch... … Tongue Times
henry

Bad Tennstedt, Germany

#287646 May 5, 2013
Therealnews com wrote:
<quoted text>
Henry, JESUS is not garbage.
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
Jesus died 2000 years ago.
henry

Bad Tennstedt, Germany

#287647 May 5, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Don’t equate totalitarian socialist regimes with Communism, the whole "dictatorship of the proletariat" thing was only meant to be a temporary stage, to force the destruction of the last vestiges of Capitalism and capitalist thoughts, and then the State was to be dissolved. We will never know, but Marx's grand failure is believing that the state would surrender power to dissolve itself – perhaps Marx was really a comedian?
Let me remember: Capitalism lives in the nucllear Age and that means nuclear Inferno is death for the whole world. Capitalism is not able to save Radiation for its deadly rays.
henry

Bad Tennstedt, Germany

#287648 May 5, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently I am ignorant to your version of communism...so are you saying that Communist Russia, Communist China and Communist Cuba are all fakes? By all means educate me...what is your version of communism?
"By all means" we are on the way to destroy the world not alone of course by a nuclear Inferno. The powers to be of nature (earthquakes, volcanos, Tsunamis etc.) are parts of destruction too. Forget religions, communism, capitalism they are not the real powers any more. Just think of Fukushima as the latest catastrophe. We will have more of such deadly ones especially in the nuclear field in future. The reality will "educate" mankind, but it is to late for any recovery!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Terrorism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Osama Bin Laden reportedly calls Obama 'powerle... (Sep '09) Thu Norwegian Supremacy 70
News Trump accuses Syria's Bashar Assad of - unspeak... May 23 a_visitor 3
News Jehovah's Witnesses as 'extremists': Court shar... May 20 red blood relative 39
News A Colombian Shakedown in Washington May 16 07 Mustang 1
News Bin Laden Reportedly Calls Obama 'Powerless' (Sep '09) May 11 Limpball Viagra 21
News AG Holder worries about revenge for bin Laden (May '11) May 10 Maxine Waters Pin... 209
News Obama thanking Navy SEALs who raided bin Laden (May '11) Apr '17 Aurora Colorado 6
More from around the web