Comments on: Intel Estimate Muddied Iran’s Nuclear Intent

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:33:52 +0000

To my way of thinking a fascist society is one characterized by an alliance between the government and big business. Capitalists bankroll the regime (albeit with commoner’s money, to be sure). That’s what the 3rd Reich was. The Holocaust ovens were provided by private concerns. Another feature of Fascist regimes are their corporatist nature – that is, society is viewed as an organic body (that’s what corp means) – with each sector of society loosely representing a body part such as brain (gov’t), heart (the established church), lungs (working class), etc. People and institutions fall into this organic structure and so all have a role to play in society and none should supercede their station in life. It’s a rigid and medieval (or older) system, a reaction to liberal democracies and Marxism. It thrives on sexual moralism and scape-goating of out-groups, both features heavily present in Nazi Germany.

By: bozh

bozh — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:37:16 +0000

in all lands we’ve had and have now fascist structure of society. societal structure differ from country to country but can be seen with also an uneducated mind.
thus i conclude fascists will not ever get rid of wmd.

a socialist structure (which we once had) can only save us from ergodic wmd war(s) and get rid of not only wmd once for all but also prevent much of needless warfare.

btw, i think people needlessly compare capitalism with social structures.
making a pie and sharing it are two aspects of the same reality.
making a pie=mode of production; sharing it more equally depends on social structures.
if social structure is piramid like or trapezoid so will sharing/caring be that way.
and we had such structures for at least ten millennia. thnx

By: jw

jw — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:14:50 +0000

what a waste of taxpayers’ money these NIEs are. It is clear as day that Iran wants to have nuclear weapons and are working to bring that about. Maybe not continuously working on this, maybe working in fits and starts, maybe not going all out on this, but inexorably they’re going in that direction. That is the only logical long range plan for them (though it’s not a do or die situation for them, which means they can do this one step at a time), and what has happened so far confirms this in spades.

and eventually, they WILL have them, that too is logical and certain, when one steps away and looks at the big picture and tries to walk in their shoes. We can’t prevent this — they may have their facilities bombed, but they know how to make those centrifuges. They may have temporarily halted work, they may be having technical problems, they may be a decade or decades from that goal. But that’s not what’s important. everything else is a bunch of people on all sides trying to sound oh so important and trying to extract goodies from each other and dance their stupid diplomatic dance.

same thing with n. korea. how stupid can people be to really believe that they are somehow going back to NOT having the weapons that they have (though very imperfect at this time), and not working on improving them. somehow forgetting all the knowledge and techniques they have of how to do it? forgetting WHY they did it in the first place? again, for them, this is eminently logical. to portray this otherwise is wishful thinking and blowing smoke in our eyes, like see we are keeping you “safe”, see we are “disarming” nuclear korea and “preventing” nuclear iran.

if you really wanted to do that you’d disarm nuclear israel, disarm nuclear US (and Russia, and others) and have everybody behave, like in some utopia, and have the others safe from US as much as we want to be safe from THEM. even then it probably wouldn’t work.

maybe if we went back to 1948 and undid the horrible injustice of israel, and undid all the horrible things we did to the iranian people, and all the other peoples in the region, then maybe they wouldn’t feel it’s their destiny to have nuclear weapons.