Proposed Discussion Outline - Dec 13th

Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2033
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Proposed Discussion Outline - Dec 13th

Post by johnkarls »

.
Suggested Discussion Outline – 12/13/2007

Is War With Iran Inevitable???
1. Hillary’s Continual Bashing of the Bush Administration for Being “Soft on Iran”
2. Push-Back by the Bush Administration with their “I Gave At The Office” Approach that is their new National Security Estimate
3. Sen Fgn Rel Ch (and Democratic Presidential Candidate) Joe Biden’s Proposed Virtual Guarantee of Nuclear War With Iran (as well as Russia)


A. Background Materials (posted on our Bulletin Board = www.drinkingliberallyslc.org/reading)

A-1. Osama bin Laden’s fatwa to nuke 10 million Americans

A-2. Harvard U Kennedy School of Government’s Founding Dean Graham Allison’s book, Nuclear Terrorism, focusing on Osama’s fatwa (Bulletin Board “Ref Mat” No. 1 is the NY Times 9/5/2004 book review of Allison’s book) – which is a “lock the barn after the horse is out” approach of keeping track of weapons-grade fissile materials

A-3. “Meet the Press” 5/29/2005 interview of then Sen Fgn Rel Ch Richard Lugar (R-IN), his Democratic predecessor Sam Nunn (D-GA) and 9/11 Commission Ch Kean & Co-Ch Hamilton on Osama’s fatwa focusing on trying to postpone the inevitable destruction of American cities by nuclear terrorists by maximizing intelligence efforts (Bulletin Board “Ref Mat” No. 2 is the “Meet the Press” transcript)

A-4. Sen Fgn Rel Ch (and Dem Presidential Candidate) Joe Biden’s 6/4/2007 proposal to threaten nuclear annihilation against any country whose fissile materials are used by nuclear terrorists to destroy American cities (Bulletin Board “Ref Mat” No. 3 is the text of Biden’s proposal to threaten such nuclear annihilation)

A-5. Hillary’s constant bashing of the Bush Administration for being “Soft on Iran” (10 items on our Bulletin Board under this topic)

A-6. The “push back” by the Bush Administration with their “I Gave At The Office” approach that is their new National Security Estimate by “defining away” the problem by labeling as “civilian” the uranium enrichment by Iran in defiance of numerous binding United Nations Resolutions –

A-6-1. Such enrichment is not needed for Iran’s nuclear energy program and has no civilian purpose.

A-6-2. Halting such enrichment has been the target of US diplomacy and the UN resolutions.

A-6-3. By limiting its “definition” of nuclear-weapons program to research on weapons-design, the new National Security Estimate turns a blind eye to the facts –

A-6-3-1. That like Libya and North Korea, Iran already purchased from A.Q. Khan (“The Father of Pakistan’s Nuclear Bomb”) the blueprints for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

A-6-3-2. That it hasn’t been that many years since M.I.T. students created highly-regarded blueprints for nuclear weapons from information that was available at that time on the internet, so Iran would only have to track down those M.I.T. students if it didn’t want to go to the trouble of resuming its nuclear-design research on a clandestine basis.

A-7. Implications of the new Bush Administration “I Gave At The Office” approach for –

A-7-1. France, Germany, Britain, Russia and other European countries that have announced in the wake of the new US National Security Estimate that they would still like to impose additional U.N. sanctions against Iran for its failure to halt uranium enrichment.

A-7-2. The “Gulf Six” (including Saudi Arabia) and, in addition, Egypt and Turkey, all of which are now expected to go nuclear in reaction to the new U.S. policy to let Iran have nuclear weapons (the contemporaneous new posting on the Bulletin Board of Max Boot’s “The Gulf States and Iran” immediately below under “Suggested Discussion Outline” is made primarily because it contains an analysis of their military capabilities contrasted with Iran’s).

A-7-3. Israel whose defense officials have just briefed the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff on their disagreement with the new US National Security Estimate (Bulletin Board Item 2 under “Is War With Iran Inevitable?” contains a statement by the former Editor of the Jerusalem Post that Israel has been planning a bombing campaign against Iran for quite some time (though, unmentioned by him, many of the Iranian installations are buried so deeply that they would require commando operations to destroy)).

A-7-4. The U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency itself, whose “off the record” comments to the NY Times indicate they do not agree with the new US National Security Estimate.

B. Proposed Discussion Questions

B-1. Should all Democratic Presidential Candidates be requested to pledge that they will NOT appoint Joe Biden as their Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense???

B-1-1. After all, Biden’s proposed nuclear-annihilation threat against any country whose fissile materials are used to destroy American cities does NOT exempt Russia, all 178 of whose suitcase-size nuclear weapons have long since been missing and presumed in the hands of terrorists!!! Since Russian can’t do anything about this, do we really want to have the nuclear holocaust proposed by Biden (think “MAD” – aka the “Cold War” Policy of “Mutually Assured Destruction”) when the inevitable happens???

B-1-2. After all, if the moderators of the candidate “debates” awoke “at the switch” and questioned Biden about his policy, he would probably admit that it was not aimed at Russia, BUT INSTEAD WAS AIMED AT IRAN (AND PAKISTAN).

B-1-2-1. Since Biden appears to be a “lock the barn after the horse is out” disciple of Harvard U Kennedy School of Government Founding Dean Graham Allison (see above), then if Messrs. Lugar/Nunn/Kean/Hamilton are correct that we can only hope to delay temporarily the destruction of American cities by nuclear terrorists, isn’t Biden guaranteeing a “second round” nuclear exchange with Iran (or Pakistan) that could reach “MAD” proportions???

B-1-2-2. It should also be noted that Stanford Prof William Perry (Pres. Bill Clinton’s Sec/Def) and Harvard Prof Ashton Carter (Pres Clinton’s Ass’t Sec/Def for Int’l Security Policy) blast Biden’s proposal, in the course of their 6/12/2007 recommendation to enact federal legislation to put the US military in charge of coping with the aftermath of terrorist nuclear attacks on American cities (since local fire/police/emergency personnel do not have the necessary nuclear expertise), on the grounds that information will be needed about the fissile materials from the country of origin and it will be impossible to obtain if we are in the process of annihilating them (Bulletin Board “Ref Mat” No. 4 is the Perry/Ashton proposal).

B-1-3. In addition, should the Senate Democrats relieve Biden of his chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (or would maintaining tradition be too important)???

B-2. Will the new Bush Administration “I Gave At The Office” approach deter Hillary Clinton from attacking Iran if elected???

B-3. Is there still a danger, despite the “I Gave At The Office” approach of the new US National Security Estimate, that the other Democratic Presidential Candidates would be perceived in the general election as naïve in proposing to “negotiate” with Iran with “sticks and carrots”???

B-3-1. After all, if we really care about nuclear non-proliferation, can we really afford to “buy off” all the North Korea’s and Iran’s of the world that would then line up for their pay offs.

B-3-2. After all, if we really care about nuclear non-proliferation, do we really want to pay off countries to lie to us (as was our experience with the "Agreed Framework" signed 10/21/94 with North Korea).

B-3-3. After all, isn’t the military threat the only thing that has ever produced meaningful negotiations???

B-3-3-1. If the new National Security Estimate is accurate, it claims that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program immediately after the US invasion of Iraq.

B-3-3-2. It is a historical fact that US intelligence had no inkling whatsoever that A.Q. Khan (the “Father of Pakistan’s Nuclear Bomb”) had sold blueprints not only to North Korea and Iran – but also to Libya which, immediately after the US invasion of Iraq, announced that they had a nuclear weapons program and would like to dismantle it (dismantling under the auspices of the UN was quickly negotiated).

B-4. What About Democracy in the Middle East, In General, and in Iran, In Particular???

B-4-1. Isn’t Iran still a democracy???

B-4-1-1. When the Shah of Iran was deposed in 1979, much was written about how Shiite Islam comprises de facto democracy because the rank of each Shiite cleric depends upon how many faithful “pray behind” that cleric – with Ayatollah rank determined by the highest number of faithful “praying behind” such clerics and Ayatollah Khomeini (Iran’s chief cleric for the first decade following the revolution until his death) having the greatest number of faithful “praying behind” him.

B-4-1-2. During the first 3-4 years after the US invasion of Iraq, the most important leader for the 60%-65% Shiite majority was Ayatollah Sistani – with the implication that he had the greatest number of faithful “praying behind” him.

B-4-1-3. Is this system still the case in Iran??? (I haven’t seen anything written on the topic recently)

B-4-2. If it is still the case in Iran, what are the moral considerations (and the practical considerations for the future) of opposing a democratic government??? Particularly, if al Qaida achieves one of its objectives – the toppling of the non-democratic governments of “The Gulf Six”???

B-5. Is It “Politically Incorrect” to Discuss the Islamic Belief that Martyrs (and 72 relatives/friends) By-Pass “The Judgment Day”???

B-5-1. After all, it is discussed at length in a book on which our 5/18/2006 meeting focused – “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and Future of Reason” which was a NY Times Best Seller and the winner of the 2005 PEN award for non-fiction.

B-5-2. It does appear to be the reason why there are so many Islamic terrorists and so comparatively few terrorists who adhere to other religions.

B-5-3. The US Supreme Court has not only discussed, but also banned, such religious practices as snake handling, denying medical care to one’s children, polygamy, etc. So why should a religious belief that nuclear terrorism is a way to by-pass “The Judgment Day” be any different???

B-5-4. An interesting moral issue to discuss would be the old Soviet policy of assassinating within 72 hours the 72 closest friends/relatives of any Muslim who kidnaps/harms a Russian!!! It was a well-known policy and only had to be employed on one occasion!!! But it was effective for decades after that one incident!!!

C. Conclusions

Post Reply

Return to “Suggested Discussion Outline - Dec 13th”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests