The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

You See, Mr. Paul, History Does Not Support Scientific Experiments

Posted on | December 16, 2011 | 59 Comments

by Smitty

The Australian reports that

RUSSIA seized today a consignment of the radioactive isotope Sodium-22 at a Moscow airport from a passenger who was to travel on a flight to Tehran, the customs service said.
“Tests showed that the Sodium-22 could only have been obtained as the result of the work of a nuclear reactor,” it said in a statement. “A criminal inquiry has been opened and the materials transferred to prosecutors.”

Sodium 22 is not recommended as a dietary supplement:

22Na is a positron-emitting isotope with a remarkably long half-life. It is used to create test-objects and point-sources for Positron emission tomography.

So the argument may be that Iran has legitimate medical interest. Yet, back to The Australian:

Moscow has echoed Western concerns about the nature of the Iranian nuclear program but stopped short of publicly accusing Tehran of seeking atomic weapons and always said that the standoff should be solved by diplomacy.
Experts have long called for tight controls against nuclear smuggling so that Iran cannot get ahold of materials it is barred from obtaining under UN Security Council sanctions.

The point of the sanctions is to put peaceful international pressure on Iran to be a nicer kid on the international playground. Maybe, Mr. Paul, if you understand that Tehran plays the bully in the Middle East the way the Federal Reserve pushes everyone around with respect to the currency, you might grasp that political liberty is as crucial as economic liberty. Yet you’re stuck in Neville Chamberlain mode, sadly. Even though what you say about the overall peacefulness of the Iranian people is very probably true, that assertion does not seem to hold for the Iranian leadership.

Here’s the 2012 rub, Ron: if it was a laboratory setting, it might be of interest to see if your approach would work, where Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter failed, failed, failed. But it’s not. History is a one shot deal. And you can go all Sermon on the Mount in your personal life, where I truly appreciate the foundations of your ideas. Yet, the Almighty constrains neither free will, nor the capacity for evil implied by that free will.

  • Nobody wants to see a dirty bomb employed.
  • Nobody wants the stress of dealing with the threat of a dirty bomb employment.
  • Crucially, the majority of Americans are going to vote against your strange comfort level with the previous two points.

Update: American Power think Paul is unserious.

Update II: A thorough Paul review at The Pirate’s Cove.

via Zero Hedge

Comments

59 Responses to “You See, Mr. Paul, History Does Not Support Scientific Experiments”

  1. ThePaganTemple
    December 16th, 2011 @ 11:28 am

    Paul has absolutely no constitutional leg to stand on. Why doesn’t someone ask him why Jefferson waged war on the Barbary Pirates. Because we would be every bit as justified in any action we take against Iran. But no, Paul knows he would lose the support of the Booger-Eaters, Klansmen, and Nazis. Right here is a perfect example of a Booger-Eating Paultard

  2. Anonymous
    December 16th, 2011 @ 11:29 am

    I think sodium is used as a coolant fluid in maritime nuclear reactors particularly by the Soviets. Personally, I always doubted the wisdom of putting large quantities of a substance that goes exothermic to explosion on contact with water in a submarine, and I have a hunch that the Soviet sub forces accident rate wasn’t helped by that….

  3. Pathfinder's wife
    December 16th, 2011 @ 11:43 am

    You are correct, if my own memory serves me, SDN.   Along with this bit of news and other things known, the Iranians will be lucky if their stupid nuke program doesn’t blow up in their faces, literally.
    That in and of itself is a danger; the mullahs would definitely say it was sabotage and then “yoiks tally-ho”.

    There are a lot of things I like about Ron Paul, but his grasp of foreign policy (and really, just in this very particular area — rogue state terrorism) is truly frightening.  This war is not Vietnam; somebody needs to sit Paul down and remind him daily of this.

  4. AngelaTC
    December 16th, 2011 @ 11:52 am

    Israel is quite capable of handling Iran without our help, a stance that the Prime Minister of Israel agrees with.

    Not. Our. Business.

  5. AngelaTC
    December 16th, 2011 @ 11:53 am

    Uh, the pirates were attacking us? 

  6. Bob Belvedere
    December 16th, 2011 @ 11:55 am

    The the Iranians have been attacking us through proxies.

  7. AngelaTC
    December 16th, 2011 @ 11:57 am

    Every single foreign policy prediction he’s made has come to fruition, yet you’re still hedging your bets on the people that swore Iraq had WMDs, the war would be a cakewalk, and that Iran would be better off if we just deposed their leader back in the 50’s.

    Seriously?

  8. smitty
    December 16th, 2011 @ 11:57 am

    Yeah. If you read ‘Six Frigates’, the economic impacts were severe.

  9. smitty
    December 16th, 2011 @ 11:59 am

    Angela, the point in the article was that this event was in violation of UN sanctions.
    We all love to hate the UN, but it’s still international law.

  10. AngelaTC
    December 16th, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

    Yeah, secret Iranian proxy attacks are hitting my city every day. 

    But our sanctions against them aren’t attacks by proxy, because we’re “exceptional” or something?

  11. NAME REDACTED
    December 16th, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

    “The point of the sanctions is to put peaceful international pressure on Iran to be a nicer kid on the international playground.”

    You mean like we have had for the past 40 years?  Sanctions never work.  Paul’s answer of “let israel deal with Iran” is probably the best one yet.

  12. AngelaTC
    December 16th, 2011 @ 12:10 pm

    The concept of international law stands in direct conflict with the sovereignty of nations, but thats a philosophical discussion best left for another day.

    Sanctions are an act of war.
    As a conservative,  I think the UN should be dissolved anyway.  They’ve done nothing to keep wars from starting, and as in this case, often seem hell bent on provoking them.

  13. Finrod Felagund
    December 16th, 2011 @ 12:12 pm

    Go tell the families of the soldiers that came back from Iraq in coffins, victims of Iranian-supplied IEDs, that Iran hasn’t been attacking us.

  14. smitty
    December 16th, 2011 @ 12:26 pm

    The concept of international law stands in direct conflict with the sovereignty of nations

    What can you possibly mean?
    inter means between or among
    national means, uh, nations

    Law between nations is about preserving, not conflicting with sovereignty.

    Or am I missing something?

  15. smitty
    December 16th, 2011 @ 12:30 pm

    Sanctions never work.

    Never is a bit strong, but you’re substantially correct. On the other hand, war is hell.

  16. ThePaganTemple
    December 16th, 2011 @ 12:36 pm

    Iran’s leader in the fifties was a filthy socialist, and I proudly support the decision taken by Washington to depose the Soviet aligned miscreant

  17. ThePaganTemple
    December 16th, 2011 @ 12:38 pm

    Sorry Smitty I stand with Angela on this one. The UN needs to go the way of the Stegosaurus.

  18. Quartermaster
    December 16th, 2011 @ 1:23 pm

    Obambi sounds like  a lot conservatives attacking the “Paultards.” Like any other candidate for POTUS, we have no idea what he would do in a situation similar to the Barbary Pirates. I note that Bush didn’t do a lot about the twits out of Somalia, nor did Bush close the border to defend the southwest against invasion.

    OTOH, I didn’t vote for Bush because I looked into what kind of Governor he was and figued he’d be teh same kind of POTUS, and he was exactly the same type of idiot there too. Sadly, Paul would probably be a great improvement.

    Also, Obambi is not typical of “Paultards.”

  19. Quartermaster
    December 16th, 2011 @ 1:24 pm

    Amen!

  20. Quartermaster
    December 16th, 2011 @ 1:30 pm

    Iraq did have a nuke program. Saddam shipped it to Syria just as we were coming in from Kuwait. Army intell had tapes of radar showing massive truck movements into Syria. Mossad nailed down where the stuff went and the Israelis took the site out back in 2007.

    It is beyond foolish to assert there was no nuke program, or WMDs. There were massive amounts of nerve gas we disposed of in Iraq, and we also found 22 tons of yellowcake which was shipped to Canada from Iraq about 2 years ago. Yellow cake the precursor from which the gases are made for gaseous enrichment. It is also a product of lower levels of enrichment. Tjhis was the high level stuff meant for weapons grade fission, not to produce power which requires, at most, about 20% (the navy uses this level) or about 3% which is used for commercial power generation stations.

  21. Quartermaster
    December 16th, 2011 @ 1:33 pm

    The Uncertainly needs to go. The reality is International law is just a figment of someone’s productive imagination. In reality it amounts to victor’s justice, which is really just lex talionis, and not law per se. It doesn’t even take much philosophical meandering to reach that point of fact either.

  22. Quartermaster
    December 16th, 2011 @ 1:34 pm

    And, as AngelaTC points out, sanctions are an act of war. And, war is hell. But not as bad as the real hell, which does not end.

  23. ThePaganTemple
    December 16th, 2011 @ 2:21 pm
  24. Bob Belvedere
    December 16th, 2011 @ 2:28 pm

    Bravo!

  25. Bob Belvedere
    December 16th, 2011 @ 2:30 pm

    And they were attacking our ships and enslaving our sailors.

    Not one cent for tribute!

  26. Bob Belvedere
    December 16th, 2011 @ 2:31 pm

    Bravo!

  27. Bob Belvedere
    December 16th, 2011 @ 2:36 pm

    Soviet Russia was not run by fanatical Mohammedins who believed the end times were upon us.

    You and Mr. Paul need to wake up to the Reality that Islam wants to destroy us, utterly.  The only difference between the various groups of the bastards is that some want to do it from within, via stealth [like the Left has done in America], and some want to use WMD’s to hasten the destruction of The West.

    America is the only nation that can stop the Mohammedins, the only only that still has left enough Will to do what needs to be done to preserve civilization.

  28. Guest
    December 16th, 2011 @ 2:49 pm

    There’s plenty of families of soldiers killed or maimed  by Iranian-supplied antitank mines or by Quds-force trained Iraqi insurgents-or by Quds Force itself.
    Plus hundreds of victims of Iranian-funded terrorism, dating back to the late ’70s.

    Of course, Ron Paul thinks they had it coming because of America’s support for Israel.

  29. smitty
    December 16th, 2011 @ 2:54 pm

    I’m not a UN apologist. That’s actually another issue.

  30. JeffS
    December 16th, 2011 @ 3:01 pm

    Don’t forget the Iraqi militias that were trained and armed by Iranians.

  31. What If Ron Paul Wins The GOP Nomination? » Pirate's Cove
    December 16th, 2011 @ 3:13 pm

    […] Smitty at The Other McCain discusses Paul’s flirtation with Neville […]

  32. Bruce
    December 16th, 2011 @ 3:58 pm

    Richard Butler is a die-hard old-time Australian leftist and the greatest UN Weapons Inspector, who was the main voice warning against Iraq’s WMD. Nothing whatsoever to do with ‘neocons’ in any way shape or form. Nor a partisan in US politics except he’s a liberal, of Celtic origins, ie likely Dem sympathiser. 

    If Ron Paul is misrepresenting the history here he is either ignorant or malicious. The whole world thought Saddam had WMD, especially here in Australia, and among the British Left. Therefore we supported the Iraq intervention with troops, since 1991. 

    Just the facts. Stop the lies.
    http://www.cfr.org/iraq/testimony-richard-butler-iraq-weapons-mass-destruction/p4687

  33. Guest
    December 16th, 2011 @ 4:29 pm

    “… with a country that’s neve, ever made an unprovoked attack.. .”
    See that? That right there is where you stop being someone to be taken seriously. Either you’re totally ignorant of US/Iranian relations in the 20th and 21st centuries, or you’re so totally in the bag for Paul that you’d say or believe anything taht he asks you to.

  34. Guest
    December 16th, 2011 @ 4:29 pm

    “… with a country that’s neve, ever made an unprovoked attack.. .”
    See that? That right there is where you stop being someone to be taken seriously. Either you’re totally ignorant of US/Iranian relations in the 20th and 21st centuries, or you’re so totally in the bag for Paul that you’d say or believe anything taht he asks you to.

  35. Donald Douglas
    December 16th, 2011 @ 4:32 pm

    Linked at my place, Smitty! Thanks.

  36. Donald Douglas
    December 16th, 2011 @ 4:32 pm

    Linked at my place, Smitty! Thanks.

  37. Pathfinder's wife
    December 16th, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

    Angela, the Iranians have been waging unofficial war by proxy on us and our allies for quite some time.  While it isn’t  quite the same sort of situation that Jefferson encountered with the Barbary pirates (the pirates were just pirates, the Iranians have designs on control of the ME at least that’s the way it’s looking) and thus that analogy doesn’t really work, it is a point of severe problems with Paul’s platform (and that’s putting it lightly) as well as people who support his thinking here.

    Besides, the pirates weren’t in a position to irradiate themselves and everything around them if their little quest for power went horribly wrong (and this could be the true, hidden nature of the Iranian nuke program: it may go boom boom before it ever really starts….and still do catastrophic damage to the ME and the global economy).

  38. republicanmother
    December 16th, 2011 @ 4:51 pm

    Who sets the agenda at the UN, and what do they have to gain? That’s TOTALLY the issue. We see them doling out favors and punishments all the time.

  39. Pathfinder's wife
    December 16th, 2011 @ 4:51 pm

    Angela, get off it.  I have not voted yet, so do not jump to conclusions (and somebody trying to “shame” me doesn’t make me amenable to their cause).

    But Ron Paul is just as open to criticism as anyone else, and truthfully he comes off on that area of foreign policy as dangerously naive and idealistic.

    This is a big problem, and he seems impervious to reconsidering.  Even my husband, who is far more idealistic than me and thus more open to Ron Paul, has some big issues with his foreign policy black hole.

  40. republicanmother
    December 16th, 2011 @ 4:52 pm

    You link to the CFR!!!
    hahahahahaha

    Wow, wiping eyes.

  41. Pathfinder's wife
    December 16th, 2011 @ 4:52 pm

    Thank you!  It’s too bad more people can’t rub two brain cells together and realize this!

  42. republicanmother
    December 16th, 2011 @ 4:54 pm

    Israel put the kibosh on Iraq’s nuke program in1981, and was roundly condemned by the entire US Congress (except for Ron Paul and a handful), Margaret Thatcher, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. 

    Ron Paul supported the sovereignty of Israel to defend herself. And as you said above, it was Mossad that took care of the problem in 2007.

    Point made.

  43. Pathfinder's wife
    December 16th, 2011 @ 5:02 pm

    The UN needs to go — but that is due to many other reasons besides the concept of international law (which nations, empires, and tribes have been engaging in since time immemorial).  It has not been a case of lex talonis and victor’s justice 100%, nor 100% all of the time.

    This was more in reply to Angela than you, but I felt this needs to be clarified.  Nation states have always engaged in attempts at avoiding open war if at all possible, because it’s simply pragmatic to do so.  In that regard I have no problem with international law.  The overseeing authority of the UN is quite another matter, but should not be confused imho.

  44. Pathfinder's wife
    December 16th, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

    Russia never had any desire to go full retard with their nukes and had much better security measures than Iran is likely to have!

    And believe me, that really isn’t saying a lot, which should scare the little green roadapples out of anyone.

  45. Pathfinder's wife
    December 16th, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

    I should have probably clarified: and this is not a reflection upon the majority of the Iranian people, nor even many within their ruling class.  Unfortunately there are enough within Iran that this applies to as to warrant consideration.

  46. republicanmother
    December 16th, 2011 @ 5:27 pm

    Jefferson waged war on the Barbary Pirates because they were directly attacking American property. He went to Congress to obtain Letters of Marque and Reprisal,  just as Ron Paul suggested after 9/11.

    The fact is, that if trade were opened up with Iran, the regime there would probably crumble as they don’t have solid support. 

    As a Christian, I pray for evangelistic opportunies to open up in the Middle East. That will never happen with the current policy of burning Bibles sent to Afgh. etc. Certainly Iraqi Christians have not benefited from the USA’s foreign policy.

    By the way, it’s telling that name-calling is what we’re down to.

  47. republicanmother
    December 16th, 2011 @ 5:28 pm

    This is simply untrue.

  48. ThePaganTemple
    December 16th, 2011 @ 5:49 pm

    Like it or not, we have interests in the Middle East that, to be coldly blunt, are a hell of a lot more important to the overall long-term national interest than the lives and welfare of a few hundred sailors, who were nevertheless important, though on a more basic level of humanity. But my point is in the furtherance of vital US interests, Bush had every bit as much right, at least, to wage war as Jefferson had, and the same holds true today with Iran.

    In the meantime, you are talking about an act, proselytizing on behalf of Christ, that would be considered far more inflammatory to Muslims than anything that has been done so far.

    As far as trade goes, that would be flooding extra dollars in the pockets of the mullahs. Do you really think they give a rats ass if they are well loved? I don’t think you appreciate how fanatical these people are. All they care about is power and control, and they have no problem whatsoever using fear and terror in furtherance of maintaining that power.

  49. ThePaganTemple
    December 16th, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

    Yes, it is simply true.

  50. K-Bob
    December 16th, 2011 @ 6:28 pm

    If her were A) The only one to make those predictions, you might have an interesting point, and  B) Not making predictions that would have been true *despite* his bizarre take on it, then we might bother to listen.