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


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

  1. K-Bob
    December 16th, 2011 @ 6:32 pm

    As I just pointed out to another Paul supporter, when I saw Saddam handing out checks to Palestinian families who’s sons committed suicide bombings, that was enough for me.

    We didn’t really need the WMD issue to take him out.

    He was living under specific restrictions as a result of GW I
    and he violated them.  He had to go.

  2. Pathfinder's wife
    December 16th, 2011 @ 7:03 pm

    Sorry (well, not really) but I cannot exchange global security for extra opportunities opening in the realm of evangelistic  prosyletizing.  It is also not the duty of this republic to open doors for a religious group’s wishes to convert people.

    It does point to a problem we have in regards to the ME: social engineering of any kind in those societies is a risky game that can and has blown up in our faces, and it is perhaps one thing we should be loathe to engage in.  Iraq and Afghanistan are not and may not want to be “just like us” in the end; perhaps we should get rid of this sort of thinking.

  3. Pathfinder's wife
    December 16th, 2011 @ 7:21 pm

    Angela, the Iranians’ protestations of only wanting peaceful nuclear energy is a sad joke that only the grossly naive and/or wilfully ignorant believe.  Iran has designs on being the power in the ME, and they mean to have nuclear weapons as a means of offensive deterrance.

    History has shown us that there are times to at least be very ready, willing, and able to go to war: think if France and England (even the U.S.) had made it very clear back in the ’30s that they would brook no nonsense with certain countries?  How many millions of people might have been saved?  Sometimes we have to be capable of looking at things that way (and how this makes a person an “hysterical ninny” fails me).

    Now, if the Israelis say they can take out Iran without our help, then perhaps we should allow them to; they certainly have every reason to do so (but then we will have to back them up internationally, because to do otherwise would be to hang an ally out to dry, and that is never good form).

    And nukes are not “simple bombs”; please don’t ever call them that again.

  4. republicanmother
    December 17th, 2011 @ 8:00 am

    Ah, and there we have it–the “interests”. Thank you. What’s the “we” thing? You think that the interests are going to benefit us?

    What I am suggesting is that instead of living in fear of 2 billion Muslims for the rest of time, or committing genocide, we use alternative methods authorized by the Prince of Peace himself to diffuse the animosity.  This doesn’t have to be overt, but covert and unofficial. 

    The mullahs would have a hard time hanging on if trade were open as supplies and means could be gotten to the huge amount of opposition in that country, they’re just waiting for something like this. Boxing Iran in is how the Mullahs are hanging on.

    I would not be so bold as to go street-preaching in Iran, but I will point out that Iranians don’t strip search their people when they get on a freaking airplane. I don’t think you appreciate how dangerous our own government is.

  5. republicanmother
    December 17th, 2011 @ 8:02 am

    I agree. My point is that our global security is being compromised with our current policy. However, I’d not that it is not “ours” but is made for us on high.

    Geopolitical pivots, Brzeznski called them in 1997. Control them and and you control Eurasia.

  6. ThePaganTemple
    December 17th, 2011 @ 8:32 am

    Our interests in the Middle East amount to one main thing-oil. And yes, that’s a good enough reason to declare was on Iraq, Iran, or anyone else who disrupts our supplies. Up to an including if necessary “genocide” as far as I’m concerned.

    And what’s this “Prince of Peace” shit? Now you’re really showing your naivete if you think you can conduct foreign policy out of the Bible. Sorry, that’s just not the way the real world works.

    And what does “covert and unofficial” mean anyway? What are you saying, our diplomats should bow and scrape in secret to keep from looking like cowards in public? Because believe me, that is precisely how the mullahs would interpret any such overtures.

    What’s going to come next from you? If Iran slips a nuke in here and blows up a city, I guess we should “turn the other cheek” huh?

  7. ThePaganTemple
    December 17th, 2011 @ 8:36 am

    They just need to sit him down long enough to give him a shot of Vicadin, then they need to stand him up, take him gently by the hand, whisper in his ear kindly and reassuringly, and then lead him to his locked room. Make sure he has plenty of puzzle books to scribble in and he’ll be fine.

  8. republicanmother
    December 18th, 2011 @ 10:47 pm

    Covert and unofficial means that throughout history ideas contrary to totalitarianism, such as Christianity have traveled along trade routes. I’m a proud believer in the Founder’s naivete. 

    Amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics.  I listen to the professionals at the CIA when they say this Iran fear campaign is bullshit.

    Genocide for oil that is abundant in our own country, yet prohibited by our government? That’s totally insane. Thank you for showing your real colors. 

  9. ThePaganTemple
    December 18th, 2011 @ 11:06 pm

    @Republicanmother No reason whatsoever why we can’t have both, oil from our country and theirs. The more we have the longer it will last and the cheaper it will be. In fact, I’m all for utilizing all our resources as a means of breaking the backs of the OPEC cartel. Then maybe they’ll talk turkey.

    And if you are so upset at the prospect of genocide then you might want to reconsider the wisdom of “winning souls for Christ” in an area where such conversions can get you the death penalty and are precisely what leads to charges of the US engaging in “crusades” against Islam. Not that I give a shit what they think, but you should at least strive for some consistency.

    But then again, you’re a Paultard, so what else can I expect but anything that amounts to blind devotion beyond all reason to that booger eating cult you’ve wrapped yourself up in for whatever reason.