A Better Than 50/50 Chance

[Bud Struggle]

A rather Problematic article about the chances of Israel bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. The article gives an interesting perspective into the way Israel thinks about itself and how it will go to any lengths to protect itself from threats real or not.

No one knows what Iran is actually doing with its nuclear program--and no one knows even if Iran gets an atomic bomb if it would actually attack Israel--but it seems that Israel doesn't take threats to its security lightly.

the Israelis have a VERY defensive mindframe. From the Atlantic Magazine. Really good article.

The Point of No Return

For the Obama administration, the prospect of a nuclearized Iran is dismal to contemplate— it would create major new national-security challenges and crush the president’s dream of ending nuclear proliferation. But the view from Jerusalem is still more dire: a nuclearized Iran represents, among other things, a threat to Israel’s very existence. In the gap between Washington’s and Jerusalem’s views of Iran lies the question: who, if anyone, will stop Iran before it goes nuclear, and how? As Washington and Jerusalem study each other intensely, here’s an inside look at the strategic calculations on both sides—and at how, if things remain on the current course, an Israeli air strike will unfold.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/the-point-of-no-return/8186/

[danyboy27]

A rather Problematic article about the chances of Israel bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. The article gives an interesting perspective into the way Israel thinks about itself and how it will go to any lengths to protect itself from threats real or not.

No one knows what Iran is actually doing with its nuclear program--and no one knows even if Iran gets an atomic bomb if it would actually attack Israel--but it seems that Israel doesn't take threats to its security lightly.

the Israelis have a VERY defensive mindframe. From the Atlantic Magazine. Really good article.

The Point of No Return

For the Obama administration, the prospect of a nuclearized Iran is dismal to contemplate— it would create major new national-security challenges and crush the president’s dream of ending nuclear proliferation. But the view from Jerusalem is still more dire: a nuclearized Iran represents, among other things, a threat to Israel’s very existence. In the gap between Washington’s and Jerusalem’s views of Iran lies the question: who, if anyone, will stop Iran before it goes nuclear, and how? As Washington and Jerusalem study each other intensely, here’s an inside look at the strategic calculations on both sides—and at how, if things remain on the current course, an Israeli air strike will unfold.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/the-point-of-no-return/8186/

i am always disturbed when someone mention ''the israeli'', its the damn israeli governement, the governement isnt the people for einstein sake!

anyway, the state of israel have always exagerated the threat they where facing, and always overreact.

i mean, a fucking all out offensive, million dollars of carpet bombing beccause 2 soldier where kidnapped while in ennemy territory, an all out offensive beccause some loony shoot some innacurate rocket made of car part on your residential area.

i wouldnt be surprised to see the israeli governement to attack iran beccause they overestimated the danger iran really represent.

[NGNM85]

Crap like this is why we should establish a Nuclear-Weapons-Free-Zone in the Middle East, or better yet, adopt the FISSBAN treaty and put the IAEA in the position of monitoring international compliance, which should be the ultimate goal. Iran was very supportive of the FISSBAN proposal, and has also made several offers on it's own to suspend nuclear efforts in return for some very modest assurances which were immediately rebuffed by the Bush administration. Clearly, the current policy is pushing them in the opposite direction, which should not be surprising. After all, Israeli aggression sparked Saddam's nuclear weapons program after the bombing of the Osirak reactor.

[Dean]

A rather Problematic article about the chances of Israel bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. The article gives an interesting perspective into the way Israel thinks about itself and how it will go to any lengths to protect itself from threats real or not.

No one knows what Iran is actually doing with its nuclear program--and no one knows even if Iran gets an atomic bomb if it would actually attack Israel--but it seems that Israel doesn't take threats to its security lightly.

the Israelis have a VERY defensive mindframe. From the Atlantic Magazine. Really good article.

The Point of No Return

For the Obama administration, the prospect of a nuclearized Iran is dismal to contemplate— it would create major new national-security challenges and crush the president’s dream of ending nuclear proliferation. But the view from Jerusalem is still more dire: a nuclearized Iran represents, among other things, a threat to Israel’s very existence. In the gap between Washington’s and Jerusalem’s views of Iran lies the question: who, if anyone, will stop Iran before it goes nuclear, and how? As Washington and Jerusalem study each other intensely, here’s an inside look at the strategic calculations on both sides—and at how, if things remain on the current course, an Israeli air strike will unfold.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/the-point-of-no-return/8186/

The Atlantic is a complete rag. I read an article of their's just the other day where they "couldn't fathom" how uniformly scripted High Frequency Trading (which provides distinct gains and losses on stocks in a predictable manner) could provide any significant advantage. Just a month or 2 ago I read how the exact same trading scheme is being used to get guaranteed returns on manipulated stock prices.

And here they actually take Obama's "Nuclear proliferation" issue seriously, and have the balls to claim that it is the driving force behind the anti-Iranian rhetoric - ignoring the fact that US policy towards Iran has consistently been against resource nationalism and little else.

Simply put The Atlantic's editorial line is naive, childish and subservient to rhetorical positions, rather than analyzing actual material changes and the like in political and economic power structures.

[Qayin]

Crap like this is why we should establish a Nuclear-Weapons-Free-Zone in the Middle East, or better yet, adopt the FISSBAN treaty and put the IAEA in the position of monitoring international compliance, which should be the ultimate goal. Iran was very supportive of the FISSBAN proposal, and has also made several offers on it's own to suspend nuclear efforts in return for some very modest assurances which were immediately rebuffed by the Bush administration. Clearly, the current policy is pushing them in the opposite direction, which should not be surprising. After all, Israeli aggression sparked Saddam's nuclear weapons program after the bombing of the Osirak reactor.

This whole post made me cringe up, another Liberal post from an "Anarchist"
I don't even know where to begin on this one.

[Bud Struggle]

Simply put The Atlantic's editorial line is naive, childish and subservient to rhetorical positions, rather than analyzing actual material changes and the like in political and economic power structures.

So Dean--what are you saying? That there isn't a chance of Israel bombing Iran? I'm not saying that you should agree with the conclusions of the article, I'm saying that it reflects accurately the mind frome of the Israeli leadership.


i am always disturbed when someone mention ''the israeli'', its the damn israeli governement, the governement isnt the people for einstein sake! I think in cases of "national security" and in dealing with the Palistinian issue I pretty much think the Government of Israel is right in line with the thinking of the Israeli people.

[danyboy27]

I think in cases of "national security" and in dealing with the Palistinian issue I pretty much think the Government of Israel is right in line with the thinking of the Israeli people.

mainly beccause of the constant mindfuck they have to endure from their own governement.

if the us governement would repeat thru the media, during year that Mecca should be bombed beccause some evil brown people threten the u.s.a, you would eventually come to a point where you would think this is a good thing.

The israeli governement and the israeli media constantly bombard their citizen with message of fear and paranoia; look, a jewish cimetery was vandalised by some drunk people in a country we cant pronounce the name , antisemitism! Zizek cticize israel, antisemitism! the us refuse to give us missile technology, antisemitism! look, some people with a boat full of food and Emergency aid for israel had stick and slingshot, hurr hurr turkish invasion!

and at the end of every disproportionate action, grouping of people outside and within the governement realize how futile and useless these senseless act of violence was, and blame their governement for being powerless to reduce the fear they have been pumped by their media and politicians.

first time i talked with an israeli he said: hoo canada hate jews, real bad, i see it on the news everyday!

that the governement manipulating people, not the governement representing the people will.

[RadioRaheem84]

This whole post made me cringe up, another Liberal post from an "Anarchist"
I don't even know where to begin on this one

He posts shit like this all the time, then gets upset when we call him a liberal.

[Conquer or Die]

He posts shit like this all the time, then gets upset when we call him a liberal.

He wants to fix the problem, not cheer when American buildings blow up so more money can be spent nuking moslems in the desert.

FUCKING LIBERAL!!!!

[NGNM85]

This whole post made me cringe up, another Liberal post from an "Anarchist"
I don't even know where to begin on this one.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Qayin]

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Re-read your post and tell me with all honesty thats the position of a Social Anarchist thats in the class struggle.

[NGNM85]

Re-read your post and tell me with all honesty thats the position of a Social Anarchist thats in the class struggle.

I find the word 'Anarchist' totally sufficient by itself and require no superfluous modifiers.

I also think you have an extremely simplistic and more than slightly skewed perception of Anarchism.

I trust this nonsense is regarding my first sentence, as the rest was simply historical background. (I can, incidentally, also name at least one prominant Anarchist who has said essentially, the same thing, however, it's common sense, so it shouldn't matter. ) Yes, I think nuclear weapons are a serious problem. They are not simply an American problem, they are a human problem, so they need to be dealt with on a global scale. The only sensible option, and the one that is supported by a nearly universal consensus, with the major and decisive exception of the United States, is global disarmament and placing the process of monitoring compliance on an international, impartial organization.

In case I didn't make it abundantly clear the first time, I only support regional disarmament as a potential stepping stone to global disarmament, which is the ultimate goal.

But, by all means, thrill me with your acumen.

[RGacky3]

Oops

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Disarmament? Hahaha, like that will ever happen this side of the millennium! :laugh:

[RadioRaheem84]

I find the word 'Liberal' totally sufficient by itself and require no superfluous modifiers.Edited for clarity.


I also think you have an extremely simplistic and more than slightly skewed perception of Anarchism. No, I think you're confused.


I trust this nonsense is regarding my first sentence, as the rest was simply historical background. Yes, I think nuclear weapons are a serious problem. They are not simply an American problem, they are a human problem, so they need to be dealt with on a global scale. The only sensible option, and the one that is supported by a nearly universal consensus, with the major and decisive exception of the United States, is global disarmament and placing the process of monitoring compliance on an international, impartial organization. Why do you talk as if what the ruling classes talk about (and I assume you keep up with the bourgeoisie discussion about nuclear weapons) is somehow sensible, especially when they presuppose so many things that are not leftist and think of what's best for national interests (economically and politically for their class).

Secondly, why do you propose the idea that we, as leftists, should use "common sense" and support bourgeoisie measures to do things which we know they won't ultimately do. Disarmament, global much less regional, is laughable under the present conditions.

I mean are you so naively idealist that you cannot even see this, NGN?


(I can, incidentally, also name at least one prominant Anarchist who has said essentially, the same thing, however, it's common sense, so it shouldn't matter.Let me guess? Chomsky?

[Obs]

Crap, NGNM posted some stupid shit again. Incurable thread derail commenced.

[NGNM85]

Edited for clarity.

You have no idea what the word means. Of course, there's no reason you should care, because Anarchism is just about as incompatible with Marxist/Leninism.


No, I think you're confused.

Based on my observations I see no reason to take that seriously.


Why do you talk as if what the ruling classes talk about (and I assume you keep up with the bourgeoisie discussion about nuclear weapons) is somehow sensible, especially when they presuppose so many things that are not leftist and think of what's best for national interests (economically and politically for their class).

Secondly, why do you propose the idea that we, as leftists, should use "common sense" and support bourgeoisie measures to do things which we know they won't ultimately do. Disarmament, global much less regional, is laughable under the present conditions.

I mean are you so naively idealist that you cannot even see this, NGN?

Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Here's some factual background to get you started; http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearweapons/articles/071509_factsheet_fmct/

The FISSBAN treaty or some variation thereof actually carries substantial, international support. In 2004 it received nearly unanimous support, 147-to-1. The US being the sole opponant. (Britain and Israel merely abstained, but they merely follow the US' lead.) In 2005 the same thing happened, except the United States was joined by Palau. So this is entirely feasible, especially as it is supported by every country that posesses nuclear weapons, excluding the US and North Korea. (Which seems to be content to suspend development in return for aid and has been pretty good about keeping up their end of the bargain.) So, like Israel/Palestine, the United States is really the sole opposition.

I don't think just leftists should support this initiative, I think all humans should support this initiative. Nuclear weapons present both a greater, and more immediate threat than climate change. Without such measures nuclear exchange is inevitable. Any sane, rational person should find this prospect absolutely terrifying. Not only is this the best possible solution, it's also the only solution.


Let me guess? Chomsky?

Yes, but I only mentioned it because he brought it up. While I'm on the subject, I wasn't talking to you. I was addressing AMKSurgency, who still has yet to thrill me with his brilliant strategy for dealing with nuclear proliferation.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why are you such a fucking moron, NGN? You piss the hell out of me. You act like we don't about the shit your posting. We, at least, I don't flip through the pages of the bourgeoise press and say hmmm here is a sensible idea. If I did I would be a mere reformist. These measures are proposed by the bourgeoise to benefit their particular class interests. Why do you act like these measures are something leftists should give ample consideration? Why do you bother being an anarchist when you care so much about reformist positions? What good does a treaty proposing the ban of fissile material for future weapons really do for disarmament? Especially when the major nations will still possess 90 percent of nuclear weapons and the US will continue to oppose total disarmament for obvious reasons.

[Dean]

Yes, but I only mentioned it because he brought it up. While I'm on the subject, I wasn't talking to you. I was addressing AMKSurgency, who still has yet to thrill me with his brilliant strategy for dealing with nuclear proliferation.
By designating the Middle East in particular as a hopeful "nuclear-free zone" you sound like you're playing the same game the media of imperial powers play - that is, "those Middle Easterners can't stop fighting so we should keep the most dangerous toys out of reach."

It'd be similar to demanding arms control in Afghanistan because of the rise of theocratic elements (most obviously the Taliban). You disappoint on two fronts:
-You support measures whose enactment would specifically empower prevalent power systems (the West) even if they had positive effects, like less violence against women
-You fail to take the issue of confronting the aforementioned power as seriously as simply "demilitarizing" a given fact.

The problem with your apparent reasoning is that when applied to class politics, it could easily be used to justify disarming both the working class and ruling class - the obvious result would be a continuation of ruling-class power that doesn't rely on overt force.

The things you say get on our tits primarily because they sound like you "just want peace" when in fact, the pacification of the players in the given system will lead to even more extreme forms of exploitation. I don't think you really want that to happen. But when you repeatedly call for simple peace maneuvers, without any class-conscientious characteristics, it sounds like you're not really interested in the same things as the rest of us.

[NGNM85]

By designating the Middle East in particular as a hopeful "nuclear-free zone" you sound like you're playing the same game the media of imperial powers play - that is, "those Middle Easterners can't stop fighting so we should keep the most dangerous toys out of reach."

It'd be similar to demanding arms control in Afghanistan because of the rise of theocratic elements (most obviously the Taliban). You disappoint on two fronts:
-You support measures whose enactment would specifically empower prevalent power systems (the West) even if they had positive effects, like less violence against women
-You fail to take the issue of confronting the aforementioned power as seriously as simply "demilitarizing" a given fact.

First, don't use that word. My mother gets to tell me she's disappointed in me, you don't have that luxury. I'm also not interested in measuring up to anybody else's standards.

This is a little fuzzy, but if I understand what you're saying, my response is thus;

I mentioned regional disarmament for two reasons, first because it's a step closer to global disarmament, second, because if a nuclear conflagration begins in the near future that is where it's likely to start. I assume everything else is crystal clear.


The problem with your apparent reasoning is that when applied to class politics, it could easily be used to justify disarming both the working class and ruling class - the obvious result would be a continuation of ruling-class power that doesn't rely on overt force.

The things you say get on our tits primarily because they sound like you "just want peace" when in fact, the pacification of the players in the given system will lead to even more extreme forms of exploitation. I don't think you really want that to happen. But when you repeatedly call for simple peace maneuvers, without any class-conscientious characteristics,


You're going to have to be a lot more specific, I don't feel comfortable responding because it isn't totally clear to me what you're saying.



it sounds like you're not really interested in the same things as the rest of us.

Who the hell is 'us'? I didn't realize I was debating with a consortium of some kind. If you would like to engage in discussion, that's fine, but I'm not going to argue with the politburo, or whatever. While I have no idea who 'us' is, I can say for a fact I'm definitely not interested in the same things as a number of individuals on this website. All of the Marxist-Leninists, for example, on principle. This is totally incompatible with Anarchism, it's like oil and water. There are also other differences and points of contention.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Iran is due for a shipment of nuclear fuel for its first NPP on August 21st.

im sure everyone here knows this and im wondering what OIs thoughts on this would be.

[Qayin]

All of the Marxist-Leninists, for example, on principle. This is totally incompatible with Anarchism, it's like oil and water. There are also other differences and points of contention.
Actually no.
The differences between Marxists and Anarchists are so little truth be told, its all nonsense over the idea of centralization and decentralization and how to get from A to B. Unless your a stupid primitivist fuck or a Liberal..

[Rusty Shackleford]

Actually no.
The differences between Marxists and Anarchists are so little truth be told, its all nonsense over the idea of centralization and decentralization and how to get from A to B. Unless your a stupid primitivist fuck or a Liberal..
i dont want to get into a debate about anarchism vs marxism. but ill agree that centralization and decentralization is the only real major sticking point between the two. there are plenty of examples throughout history of anarchists and marxists working together.

though i dont follow or know much about NGNM's posts. that one about the peace treaty was indeed liberal.

[NGNM85]

Actually no.
The differences between Marxists and Anarchists are so little truth be told, its all nonsense over the idea of centralization and decentralization and how to get from A to B. Unless your a stupid primitivist fuck or a Liberal..

You still haven't impressed me with you're brilliant strategy for combatting nuclear proliferation.

That would be more meaningful if I thought you had the slightest clue what you were talking about.

I also specifically said Marxist-LENINISM, which is totally incompatible with Anarchism. Of course, you'd have to understand what Anarchism is, first.

[Qayin]

I also specifically said Marxist-LENINISM, which is totally incompatible with Anarchism. Of course, you'd have to understand what Anarchism is, first. Humor me Liberal.


LENINISM
I doubt you know what leninism even is.


You still haven't impressed me with you're brilliant strategy for combatting nuclear proliferation.Anything Dean or RadioRaheem84 said regarding this issue.
Nukes can disappear once the Bourgeois Dictatorship has been abolished, when you talk of Nuclear Proliferation happening in the US or other Imperialist nations, its just not going to happen.

[Rusty Shackleford]

You still haven't impressed me with you're brilliant strategy for combatting nuclear proliferation.

That would be more meaningful if I thought you had the slightest clue what you were talking about.

I also specifically said Marxist-LENINISM, which is totally incompatible with Anarchism. Of course, you'd have to understand what Anarchism is, first.
ok dude. its pretty much ufuckingtopian thinking you can wrest nuclear weapons from imperialist's hands politically and peacefully. the only way to do it is to have a revolution( i was about to get pretty violent here, at least rhetorically:lol:). And fighting for "Non-proliferation" is a liberal wet dream. what does non-proliferation mean? halting the spreading of nuclear weapons, not destroying them all out-right.

this means you leave states with legitimate reasons(like the DPRK*) for having them off in "invade me imperialists, i dont have any way of countering your oversized arsenal!" land.

And dont get started on the DPRK. You are an anarchist. you are against all states right? yet you claim that a global state mechanism like the UN can enforce, through coercion if necessary, a non-nuclear middle east. working straight into the hands of the imperialists.

As for leninism and anarchism. yes shit wend dwon in 21-22. eyah shit fucked up in spain. But guess what? i was an anarchist(at least in theory) ive heard of many anarchists working with the PSL(Which happens to be Marxist-Leninist). We dont shun someone away because of political tendency(sure we have disagreements on issued but there is real work to be done, not some fucking debating on may 1st or something!). we work with those who are revolutionary.


**(in my opinion and i dont want to have a debate about this. if this gets started in a new tangent in this thread i wont respond. Go debate it in politics if you need to discuss the DPRK so badly)

[Conquer or Die]

Anarchists are usually white nowadays, and want to destroy the government as a first step. I see a deviation from the latter principle an absence of anarchist theory. I see the first identification just about every time I see anarchists throwing rocks into Starbucks.

Anyways - too much nonsense on this thread. If the Bourgeiose likes freedom of religion, that's a good thing. If they like nuclear disarmament; also a good thing. The Bourg don't consider laborers as people, they see them as property, but they are also interested in certain good things that are crucial to the development of a socialist constitution and dictatorship. Moreover, while the Bourg is more than happy to see plenty of its property die in a fire, they also need people and markets. They also like real estate and certain ideas over others. Which is why the Bourg may be interested in stopping nuclear proliferation. There is collusion on the part of the Bourg, but this collusion is defeated as a result of their system; so there will be no global collusion to keep nuclear weapons as a means of subjugating the working class. When the Bourg pass laws against animal torture it is not a direct affront to the working class.

Seriously, how much ineffectual, pseudo-prole clit rubbing is going to be tolerated in place of rational thinking on these forum boards? More excuses, more inaction, more excuses. Sic Semper Ignoramus.

[Conquer or Die]

As for leninism and anarchism. yes shit wend dwon in 21-22. eyah shit fucked up in spain. But guess what? i was an anarchist(at least in theory) ive heard of many anarchists working with the PSL(Which happens to be Marxist-Leninist). We dont shun someone away because of political tendency(sure we have disagreements on issued but there is real work to be done, not some fucking debating on may 1st or something!). we work with those who are revolutionary.

Anarchists should be assassinating government officials, capitalists, and fascists while living on cooperatives - not collaborating with an opportunistic party.

[Qayin]

Anarchists should be assassinating government officials, capitalists, and fascists while living on cooperatives - not collaborating with an opportunistic party.
Are you serious?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Anarchists should be assassinating government officials, capitalists, and fascists while living on cooperatives - not collaborating with an opportunistic party.

humor or brain failure?


were not opportunists. were just not about being divisive when its not necessary.

as for the whole assassination thing. you sound like that fuck who was all about being a leftist merc in the main forum.
"just give me an email, thats all i need"
im guessing you are a blanquist?


EDIT: this thread is on the verge of dying. admins, can you clean it up or trash it?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Crap, NGNM posted some stupid shit again. Incurable thread derail commenced.


Why are you such a fucking moron, NGN? You piss the hell out of me.

This shit will cease immediately, from all of you. Revleft is not some personal arena for knuckle-dragging ideologues such as yourselves to pursue political vendettas against imagined "liberals", a term so abused by some on the left that it's real meaning is in serious danger of becoming extinct.

Stick to the facts, and try to actually read what people write instead of imagining it.

[RadioRaheem84]

This shit will cease immediately, from all of you. Revleft is not some personal arena for knuckle-dragging ideologues such as yourselves to pursue political vendettas against imagined "liberals", a term so abused by some on the left that it's real meaning is in serious danger of becoming extinct.

Stick to the facts, and try to actually read what people write instead of imagining it.


Noxion, get off your pedestal and quit acting like a little guardian for NGN! I have never treated anyone on this forum quite like him, but he get's on my last nerve diverting many threads with his obvious reformist BS, and then gets upset when others call him out for it. He thinks his particular brand of Anarchism is the standard and then resorts to blaming others for not understanding him.

I did stick to the facts. He stuck to consistently spewing his liberal, yes, liberal, yes I'll say it again, liberal...oh I'll say it a fourth time, liberal, bile.

Also, thanks for considering me a knuckle dragging ideologue for trying to maintain a level of consistency on matters concerning the left on revleft. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Next time, maybe I should post and advocate bourgeoisie reformist measures to prove how much of a real leftist I am to fit your preference.

So get off my back. I'll not use harsh language anymore, but I will not stop challenging NGN.

[RadioRaheem84]

All of the Marxist-Leninists, for example, on principle. This is totally incompatible with Anarchism, it's like oil and water. There are also other differences and points of contention.

Why do you keep stressing this as if it's true? You might as well not be on this site.


You're going to have to be a lot more specific, I don't feel comfortable responding because it isn't totally clear to me what you're saying.

What he means is that if you were to analyze this using a class analysis, the proposed reform would endanger some nations over others and continue dominance by the larger nations over the smaller ones. It would also hurt the working class knowing they have no deterrent.

I still do not get why you offer us elite consensus as some sort of measure to benefit the working class in any way, especially when it comes to nuclear weapons. When you the "world" is for it, what exactly do you mean when it's just the elite of certain nations voting on such measures?


I mentioned regional disarmament for two reasons, first because it's a step closer to global disarmament, second, because if a nuclear conflagration begins in the near future that is where it's likely to start. I assume everything else is crystal clear.

Like everyone else has stated in here, the hope doesn't lie in proposed measure by the bourgeoisie, NGN, but in revolution. The measures proposed do little in the long run.

[Jazzhands]

Why are you such a fucking moron, NGN? You piss the hell out of me. You act like we don't about the shit your posting. We, at least, I don't flip through the pages of the bourgeoise press and say hmmm here is a sensible idea. If I did I would be a mere reformist. These measures are proposed by the bourgeoise to benefit their particular class interests. Why do you act like these measures are something leftists should give ample consideration? Why do you bother being an anarchist when you care so much about reformist positions? What good does a treaty proposing the ban of fissile material for future weapons really do for disarmament? Especially when the major nations will still possess 90 percent of nuclear weapons and the US will continue to oppose total disarmament for obvious reasons.

explain to me how avoiding nuclear annihilation is a bad idea.

let me put things in perspective since reality seems to be rather "opaque" here. If a nuclear war were to happen, then the proletariat would be much too devastated to fight a revolution because, well, they just got nuked. Meanwhile the bourgeoisie had access to government fallout shelters and had the resources to build high-quality ones of their own. they don't have to let the proles in, you know. in fact, it's in their class interest not to do so so that when they come out, they have the proletariat begging for aid from them so they come out looking all shiny and savior-y.

obviously we can't count on the US or any other major nation for total disarmament. nobody is saying we can. stop strawmanning.

[RadioRaheem84]

explain to me how avoiding nuclear annihilation is a bad idea.

let me put things in perspective since reality seems to be rather "opaque" here. If a nuclear war were to happen, then the proletariat would be much too devastated to fight a revolution because, well, they just got nuked. Meanwhile the bourgeoisie had access to government fallout shelters and had the resources to build high-quality ones of their own. they don't have to let the proles in, you know. in fact, it's in their class interest not to do so so that when they come out, they have the proletariat begging for aid from them so they come out looking all shiny and savior-y.

obviously we can't count on the US or any other major nation for total disarmament. nobody is saying we can. stop strawmanning. OK, if anyone is strawmanning it's you my dear friend. The FISBANN treaty, which we were specifically talking about, a reformist measure, allows for the banning of fissle material in any new weapons. It doesn't say anything about ridding the world of the current nuclear weapons which are mainly in the hands of the US and other major powers.

Secondly, when discussing disarmament, are you seriously insinuating that bourgeoisie measures toward disarmament are going to benefit our class? Especially, when imperial powers know that they could end up in the hands of the proles, such as in the Cuban situation of the early 60s?

I do not think that avoiding nuclear annihilation is a bad thing, but that the proposed measures by bourgeois politicians is not going to aid in avoiding that.

Oh and NGN was certainly saying that we can count on the US and other major nations to disarm as his post asserted. You know the one with the figures of bourgeoisie politicians taking a vote and him claiming that the "world" is for this? Did you miss that one, pumpkin, or were you too busy hating my post?

[Jazzhands]

Nukes cause way more damage to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie. That's all I'm saying.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a good thing? I thought Khrushchev was a revisionist?:rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

Nukes cause way more damage to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie. That's all I'm saying.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a good thing? I thought Khrushchev was a revisionist?:rolleyes:


The point was to show the hypocrisy of US policy toward Nukes. They were putting missiles in Italy and Turkey just a while before the Soviets decided to put missiles in Cuba. The US rationale was that the US and NATO were a force for good, while putting missiles with nuclear capability in Cuba by the USSR showed how evil their empire was. This is what bourgeoisie policy is and has been all about.

Their hypocritical stance there continues to this day and it stalls any talks of total nuclear disarmament.

http://beta.zcommunications.org/nuclear-hypocrisy-by-anthony-dimaggio

^ Here is another tidbit from the "lesser of two evils", the Dems and not to mention President Obama who reversed the Bush Administrations policy on FISSBAN.


The IPS report states that “despite the statements by Barack Obama that he wants to see the world reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. Department of Energy continues to push forward on a program called Complex Modernization, which would expand two existing nuclear plants to allow them to produce new plutonium pits and new bomb parts out of enriched uranium for use in a possible new generation of nuclear bombs.” The story’s timing is particularly ironic considering that the U.S. is openly admitting to reconstituting nuclear weapons, while there is currently no physical evidence that Iran is running a nuclear weapons program.

Nukes cause way more damage to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie. That's all I'm saying.Relying on reformist measures to solve our nuclear problem is fruitless. That's all I am saying.

[Jazzhands]

The point was to show the hypocrisy of US policy toward Nukes. They were putting missiles in Italy and Turkey just a while before the Soviets decided to put missiles in Cuba. The US rationale was that the US and NATO were a force for good, while putting missiles with nuclear capability in Cuba by the USSR showed how evil their empire was. This is what bourgeoisie policy is and has been all about.

you really think I don't know that? exactly how little do you people think of me?:crying:


Their hypocritical stance there continues to this day and it stalls any talks of total nuclear disarmament.

http://beta.zcommunications.org/nuclear-hypocrisy-by-anthony-dimaggio

^ Here is another tidbit from the "lesser of two evils", the Dems and not to mention President Obama who reversed the Bush Administrations policy on FISSBAN.

good point.


Relying on reformist measures to solve our nuclear problem is fruitless. That's all I am saying.

I never, ever said I think that. Obviously the revolution of the proletariat and the end of imperialism is the only thing that can completely solve the nuclear problem. but I would prefer to do something to at least last us until the revolution.

[Conquer or Die]

Noxion, get off your pedestal and quit acting like a little guardian for NGN! I have never treated anyone on this forum quite like him, but he get's on my last nerve diverting many threads with his obvious reformist BS, and then gets upset when others call him out for it. He thinks his particular brand of Anarchism is the standard and then resorts to blaming others for not understanding him.

Oh dear, he demands a standard by which to be judged. Instead you get to define your own standard by saying "revolutionary" multiple times.


I did stick to the facts. He stuck to consistently spewing his liberal, yes, liberal, yes I'll say it again, liberal...oh I'll say it a fourth time, liberal, bile.

This is disgusting. You're literally acting like a child.


Also, thanks for considering me a knuckle dragging ideologue for trying to maintain a level of consistency on matters concerning the left on revleft. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Next time, maybe I should post and advocate bourgeoisie reformist measures to prove how much of a real leftist I am to fit your preference.

He's telling you not to be a douchebag. You're calling NGN a reformist bourg because you have no solutions of your own but pathetic criticisms taken from the conglomerate mass of leftist opinion you don't understand.


So get off my back. I'll not use harsh language anymore, but I will not stop challenging NGN.

You don't challenge shit.

[RadioRaheem84]

you really think I don't know that? exactly how little do you people think of me?:crying:



I am sure you do, comrade. I didn't mean to make it look like you didn't.

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh dear, he demands a standard by which to be judged. Instead you get to define your own standard by saying "revolutionary" multiple times.Well if this standard is somehow a confused mish mash of idealist, liberal and "anarchist" stuff then that's much of a standard for him to judge our critiques.


He's telling you not to be a douchebag. You're calling NGN a reformist bourg because you have no solutions of your own but pathetic criticisms taken from the conglomerate mass of leftist opinion you don't understand.I think the point is that NGN doesn't understand the "conglomerate mass of leftist opinion" and insists that his particular brand of fiery idealism is somehow the gold standard.

So apparently, my solution wasn't good enough for you? Perhaps it was because I don't really have anything concrete other than class struggle and revolutionary socio-political change. Should I have proposed advocating reformist proposals instead? What that have been more "concrete"?
What should I have said that would've perfected my leftist credentials in your eyes, son?


This is disgusting. You're literally acting like a child. Aren't you the creepy guy that created a whole thread to try and challenge me on the Hugo Chavez issue? Calling me a "sick human being" and what not? After I only wrote 5 words in response to you?

[Obs]

Oh dear, he demands a standard by which to be judged. Instead you get to define your own standard by saying "revolutionary" multiple times.
You're one to fucking talk after that trainwreck of a thread you made about Inception. You know, the one where you chastised literally everyone else in the thread as not being "real revolutionaries" without ever specifying what that entailed.

[Conquer or Die]

You're one to fucking talk after that trainwreck of a thread you made about Inception. You know, the one where you chastised literally everyone else in the thread as not being "real revolutionaries" without ever specifying what that entailed.

Hardly a trainwreck of a thread: I made my position be known. I criticized many on this forum generally because I think it's true. I think there are a bunch of kids/disgruntled human beings without a clue or a purpose thinking that Che Guevara looks hot and maybe you can kill people. That's a general statement on my part, but for you, radioraheem, and the other contras in the making I think it's an apt description.

The condition does not apply to everyone on these forums. This is why I want to get back to the original forum and start discussions. There are good people there, and the good people here are more often than not the ones who are "restricted."

[Obs]

Hardly a trainwreck of a thread: I made my position be known. I criticized many on this forum generally because I think it's true. I think there are a bunch of kids/disgruntled human beings without a clue or a purpose thinking that Che Guevara looks hot and maybe you can kill people. That's a general statement on my part, but for you, radioraheem, and the other contras in the making I think it's an apt description.

The condition does not apply to everyone on these forums. This is why I want to get back to the original forum and start discussions. There are good people there, and the good people here are more often than not the ones who are "restricted."
lol ok

[Conquer or Die]

Well if this standard is somehow a confused mish mash of idealist, liberal and "anarchist" stuff then that's much of a standard for him to judge our critiques.

Now it's "our" critiques and not "your" critiques. Consistency is an issue with those without legitimate opinion.


I think the point is that NGN doesn't understand the "conglomerate mass of leftist opinion" and insists that his particular brand of fiery idealism is somehow the gold standard.

I think you're pissed that he wanted you to think of constructive ways to deal with an issue.


So apparently, my solution wasn't good enough for you? Perhaps it was because I don't really have anything concrete other than class struggle and revolutionary socio-political change. Should I have proposed advocating reformist proposals instead? What that have been more "concrete"?
What should I have said that would've perfected my leftist credentials in your eyes, son?

Your problem is that you say things without knowing the meaning of them. You use archaic leftist terminology with the best of the worst but you really don't advocate much besides irrational discontent and unthinking passion.

I advocate revolutionary economic change in the form of socialist class struggle which necessarily effects socio-political change. I don't happen to think that any of what NGN said was worthy of your petulant, childish attacks. You literally decided to call him a liberal four times as if you were a second grade schoolbay pissing himself over other people being the first in line to play four square. You attacked his character with a childish, objectively hilarious temper tantrum.


Aren't you the creepy guy that created a whole thread to try and challenge me on the Hugo Chavez issue? Calling me a "sick human being" and what not? After I only wrote 5 words in response to you?

I was pretty pissed off that somebody could blatantly lie to themselves in the face of actual evidence. A lack of common sense or rational discussion on your part is better characterized as "pathetic." This thread bears you out more fully.

[RadioRaheem84]

Your problem is that you say things without knowing the meaning of them. You use archaic leftist terminology with the best of the worst but you really don't advocate much besides irrational discontent and unthinking passion.


Come again? :confused:


I advocate revolutionary economic change in the form of socialist class struggle which necessarily effects socio-political change.

How does this in any way a rebuttal of what I said, which is less reliance on reformist measures and more on revolutionary change?

I am not sure what it is you're so pissed about. You do not have a single thought out critique of what I said.

[NGNM85]

Why do you keep stressing this as if it's true? You might as well not be on this site.

It's absolutely true. Vanguardism, and, especially, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat are completely antithetical to Anarchism. They take polar opposite views on individual rights. There are also other differences.

I was told this site was for Communists and Anarchists of all stripes. The Soviet motif should have been a tipoff. It seems Anarchism is an under-represented minority.


What he means is that if you were to analyze this using a class analysis, the proposed reform would endanger some nations over others and continue dominance by the larger nations over the smaller ones. It would also hurt the working class knowing they have no deterrent.

I think he's smart enough to speak for himself. However, that's a terrible idea. It is possible development of nuclear weapons might deter invasion or intervention by foreign powers for small countries. It is also true that this could backfire, resulting in a preemptive strike such as the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in the '80's, Israel may be on the verge of taking a similar action against Iran. Also, some of these countries are ruled by dictators, military juntas, or theocrats, and a number are politically unstable increasing the likelihood of the devices falling into the wrong hands, Pakistan, for example. I don't see how a fundamentalist Islamic police state with nuclear weapons is any benefit to the working class or anybody else. Even if this could theoretically bolster security for some countries in the short term, it endangers the security of the human race. The more of these devices get built, the more likely it is one of them is going to go off. We should be doing everything in our power to discourage the development of these devices, there are already far too many. Moreover, the Cuban missle crisis should be all the evidence one needs that this game of nuclear brinksmanship is as crazy as it is foolish and ultimately, everybody loses.


I still do not get why you offer us elite consensus as some sort of measure to benefit the working class in any way, especially when it comes to nuclear weapons. When you the "world" is for it, what exactly do you mean when it's just the elite of certain nations voting on such measures?

I think in this case the political stance of these nations actually does reflect the will of the majority of the constituents. Regardless, it's still the right thing to do. First, the solution has to be international, involving all the nuclear armed states, second, it should be led by an independent body, seperate from the states, themselves. The first order of business towards creating a world without nukes is to stop making them.


Like everyone else has stated in here, the hope doesn't lie in proposed measure by the bourgeoisie, NGN, but in revolution. The measures proposed do little in the long run.

This measure would do a lot. It's also feasible. Like I said, the US is the sole stumbling block, and it's an easy sell.

[RadioRaheem84]

NGN, why is the US the "last stumbling bloc"? If you know the answer to that you'll know why bourgeoise reforms are mostly fruitless. Did you not see the article I posted about the US and it's hypocritical stance on nuclear disarmament? This coming from the Prez that reversed the policy of the Bush Co. to restart fissban talks?

[NGNM85]

NGN, why is the US the "last stumbling bloc"? If you know the answer to that you'll know why bourgeoise reforms are mostly fruitless. Did you not see the article I posted about the US and it's hypocritical stance on nuclear disarmament? This coming from the Prez that reversed the policy of the Bush Co. to restart fissban talks?

"BlocK."

Because it was the only country that actually opposed the measure, with the exception of Palau, (International powerhouse that they are :D, which probably only voted that way because we leaned on them.) the second time around. So, the stumbling block is changing US policy. This shouldn't be any different from civil rights, or the 40-hour work week, etc. It has the advantage of having a lot of popular support to draw on. Like national healthcare, this is totally feasible if we actually get our shit together. That's a big 'if.'

[RadioRaheem84]

I reread your post carefully and thought wow do you sound like a future policy wonk. NGN, how do you propose these independent bodies would be formed and not have any influence from the major states? How do propose they'll have any clout?

Secondly, while I know that you think all nuclear weapons are bad, why do you speak like a reporter from the New Republic or some similar rag when it comes to smaller nations? You act as though while it's bad for nuclear weapons to exist, they're almost safer in the hands of the US and Western Powers than other nations, where as little nations cannot really be trusted? I can understand where you're coming from to an extent but you're realty laying the liberal banter on thick by using your examples. Congrats. I've never seen revleft this close to reading like a Times Mag discussion board. At least you brought us into closer to the point of relevancy and into the mainstream.

Again why don't you take my advice and read Dissent Mag? I am not being sarcastic. You would like it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Sorry for my spelling. On my I phone right now. Anyways, NGN, the question was more of a trick one. The point was that the US is stumbling block for reasons much greater than just political. It was to get you to see this in class terms. To see the situation from the point of how leftists see the world under the thumb of capitalism, imperialism, and the policies that develop.

It would take much more than mere reform.

[NGNM85]

I reread your post carefully and thought wow do you sound like a future policy wonk. NGN, how do you propose these independent bodies would be formed and not have any influence from the major states? How do propose they'll have any clout?

The IAEA already inspects and monitors nuclear facilities. The proposed agreement would cover all the bases, all parties would agree to suspend production of nuclear weapons, or weapons-grade material, the agreement would also include consent to monitoring and inspections to ensure compliance. This is actually relatively easy in the age of satellites and so forth, you can't cook plutonium up in your garage, it's not something that can go unnoticed for very long. This is the part that the US most strenuously objects to.


Secondly, while I know that you think all nuclear weapons are bad,

They really are. At least until Godzilla actually attacks Tokyo, or an asteroid threatens to collide like in that shitty "Armageddon" movie. As long as these things exist they can go off.


why do you speak like a reporter from the New Republic or some similar rag when it comes to smaller nations? You act as though while it's bad for nuclear weapons to exist, they're almost safer in the hands of the US and Western Powers than other nations, where as little nations cannot really be trusted? ....

A number of reasons. First, it would involve creating more nukes. Then, you can look at the examples, individually. The North Korean regime hardly inspires confidence, although they seem manageable, as long as they receive aid. Pakistan is at war with India, a war that could easily escalate to nuclear exchange. Moreover, Pakistan is politically unstable and home to a powerful Jihadist sect that could potentially take over at some point. The Iranian government may not be the boogeyman, but the idea of the ayatollahs developing nuclear capacity is hardly comforting. Moreover, while I understand it, their efforts to develop a bomb are actually counterproductive because it's setting off the Israeli government, which is pretty high-strung as it is. Simply put; these countries are more likely to use the bomb, or to give it to someone who will. I don't think nuclear weapons are safe in anybody's hands, however, the big players (Russia, US, China, UK, France, etc.) are substantially less likely to use them. From the major powers I think the biggest threat is actually an accidental detonation, which you wouldn't think would be possible, but it has almost happened a couple of times.

[RadioRaheem84]

I really don't think I have much else to say, you really laid it all out. I will let other comrades answer your post.

[Dean]

More evidence of The Atlantic's character as a rag: http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2010/08/17/the-israel-lobby-swims-the-atlantic/ "The Israel Lobby Swims The Atlantic"

"A huge trove of newly declassified documents (http://irmep.org/ila/azc/) subpoenaed during a Senate investigation reveals how Israel’s lobby pitched, promoted, and paid to have content placed in America’s top news magazines with overseas funding. The Atlantic (and others) received hefty rewards for trumpeting Israel’s most vital – but damaging – PR initiatives across America."

[RadioRaheem84]

I am not disparaging the article but doesn't Lew Rockwell run the antiwar.com site?

[Dean]

I am not disparaging the article but doesn't Lew Rockwell run the antiwar.com site?
No, but it is a libertarian site. No reason to be dogmatic about our news sources - I'm sure the article has its flaws, just like any other. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

History suggests that if a country wants nukes badly enough, they will acquire them. Finger-wagging double-standards from "international" (actually pretty much US-controlled) agencies has proven to be useless.

As long as the surface of the Earth is divided up into mutually antagonistic territories, war will be an inevitable side-effect, and the participants in those wars will seek any edge they can get. If they have the technological capability, this means nukes.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay for the foreseeable future.

[NGNM85]

History suggests that if a country wants nukes badly enough, they will acquire them. Finger-wagging double-standards from "international" (actually pretty much US-controlled) agencies has proven to be useless.

However, it's important that the United States has really been the only stumbling block standing in the way of thse initiatives. So it's really an issue of changing US policy.



As long as the surface of the Earth is divided up into mutually antagonistic territories, war will be an inevitable side-effect, and the participants in those wars will seek any edge they can get. If they have the technological capability, this means nukes.

This is the danger of nationalism, what Einsten correctly described as an infantile mental disease, which arbitrarily devides the human race into opposing teams. I think the primary mode of moving past this is through integration, through internationalism. Ultimately, it's going to be one world or no world.


Nuclear weapons are here to stay for the foreseeable future.

True enough, but we can take steps to mitigate the danger.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

However, it's important that the United States has really been the only stumbling block standing in the way of thse initiatives. So it's really an issue of changing US policy.

How likely do you think that is, honestly?


This is the danger of nationalism, what Einsten correctly described as an infantile mental disease, which arbitrarily devides the human race into opposing teams. I think the primary mode of moving past this is through integration, through internationalism. Ultimately, it's going to be one world or no world.

I agree. But expecting the current organs of international regulation to deliver that is asking too much - I bet money that they are too deep in the pocket of the US government to affect meaningful change.


True enough, but we can take steps to mitigate the danger.

That can be achieved by changing the general circumstances in a direction where nuclear weapons are less likely to be used, but that is not the same thing as banning nuclear weapons or enriched fuel.

[Dean]

However, it's important that the United States has really been the only stumbling block standing in the way of thse initiatives. So it's really an issue of changing US policy.
Which regime would handle the situation differently? The US is very good at forming national policy tailored to its own interests.

[NGNM85]

Which regime would handle the situation differently? The US is very good at forming national policy tailored to its own interests.

In this case the solution is to change the policy.

[RadioRaheem84]

In this case the solution is to change the policy.

That would require changing much more than just policy, NGN. There is so much tied up with it.

[NGNM85]

That would require changing much more than just policy, NGN. There is so much tied up with it.

Global disarmament would take a massive international effort. This is just a small, but necessary, first step in that direction. The treaty has been supported by most of the world, in fact, the US is the sole exception. That reduces the question to how do we change the policy? That isn't especially complicated. You get the word out, you mobilize people and you make it happen. It's really just a question of time and commitment.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well, the Iranian gov't recently said an attack is now very unlikely. and the US is downplaying the threat of the nuclear reactor. this is just short term though.

i believe the israelis still may consider attacking iran within the next year.

[RGacky3]

i believe the israelis still may consider attacking iran within the next year.

If they do .... There will be such a shitstorm.

[Bud Struggle]

If they do .... There will be such a shitstorm.

The price of gas would go to $10 a gallon and the entire world would suffer.

[RGacky3]

The price of gas would go to $10 a gallon and the entire world would suffer.

More than that, you'd risk huge warfare all across the middle east.

[Bud Struggle]

More than that, you'd risk huge warfare all across the middle east.

And that's a real question I always have with the Left--you want to nationalize business but everytime the government is mention--you dislike its actions.

Don't forget if you nationalize business it will be the Bushs and the Obamas and the Tea Parties and the Democrats--the same old corrupt people that are in office now that would control these companies--and who do you think would profit from them?

[RGacky3]

And that's a real question I always have with the Left--you want to nationalize business but everytime the government is mention--you dislike its actions.

Don't forget if you nationalize business it will be the Bushs and the Obamas and the Tea Parties and the Democrats--the same old corrupt people that are in office now that would control these companies--and who do you think would profit from them?

Who profits from the Post Office? From Medicare? From the fire service.

I'm in favor of nationalizing industries that have national impact, such as the energy sector, healthcare and so on. Because right now, the other option is privatized industries, which is much much worse.

[Bud Struggle]

Who profits from the Post Office? From Medicare? From the fire service.

I'm in favor of nationalizing industries that have national impact, such as the energy sector, healthcare and so on. Because right now, the other option is privatized industries, which is much much worse.

Well you've listed two screwed up prganizations (on the national level) and one that works pretty well--Fire service--which works on the local level.

And I know lots of millionaires have been made from subcontracts from the Mail service and Medicare is on of the great fraud creators in American history:

http://news.injuryboard.com/medicare-frauds-rick-scott-leading-in-florida-gov-race-.aspx?googleid=282152

And the guy that did this just won the Florida Republican primary for governor of Florida last night.

I don't know--I just don't trust them.

[Obs]

And that's a real question I always have with the Left--you want to nationalize business but everytime the government is mention--you dislike its actions.

Don't forget if you nationalize business it will be the Bushs and the Obamas and the Tea Parties and the Democrats--the same old corrupt people that are in office now that would control these companies--and who do you think would profit from them?
Wow, it's almost as if you just showed up here and don't realise there are several forums on this site where you can read and get an insight into Leftist ideology. I mean, if I didn't know better, I'd think you were a hack trying out ancient strawmen for no discernable reason!

[RGacky3]

Well you've listed two screwed up prganizations (on the national level) and one that works pretty well--Fire service--which works on the local level.

And I know lots of millionaires have been made from subcontracts from the Mail service and Medicare is on of the great fraud creators in American history:


But you trust the corporations,
Medicare, works with a 1 or 2% overhead, as oppsed to the much much larger overhead for, for profit insurance, you'd need about 30% of its to go to fraud for it to be as inefficient as for profit insurance.

About what your saying about the mail service, yeah, but still, it works does'nt it.

Healthcare in every other industrial country works better than the US, tons of countries nationalized their energy sector, look at what happened when California privatized it, the fact is the that the facts worldwide go against that claim.

[Dean]

But you trust the corporations,
Medicare, works with a 1 or 2% overhead, as oppsed to the much much larger overhead for, for profit insurance, you'd need about 30% of its to go to fraud for it to be as inefficient as for profit insurance.
Medicare costs 440Bn Annually and fraudulent charges to medicare account for 60Bn annually. That's about 13-14%, plus overhead is 1-2% yields a cost of 14-16% overhead for medicare which compares favorably to your 30% overhead for the private industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29#Costs_and_funding_cha llenges

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml

[NGNM85]

I think it's interesting that when right wingers go on their diatribes about bloated, plodding, inefficient government programs they never mention the CIA, or the NSA. It seems they believe government is so clumsy and inept it can't do anything right,...except manage the most sophisticated military and intelligence agencies on earth.

[NGNM85]

Getting back to the original topic, I also read the article, which was very good, and I agree. The author makes a very persuasive case, and I've seen indicators in a number of other sources, as well. I think there's a very likely possibility Israel will launch an air raid on the Iranian nuclear power plant, much like they did with the Iraqi Osirak reactor in the 80's, which is what actually inspired Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons, contrary to the general wisdom. I suspect in Iran's case such an action would be equally counterproductive, to say the least. It seems the US is against it, but there’s' no guarantee the Israeli government won't simply act unilaterally. They have done so in the past, with little consequence. It seems Israel can get away with murder, literally. They have undermined US intelligence agencies, stolen secret documents and materiel, including several pounds of uranium, and, on several occasions, killing US civilians, all of this stimulating little more than a verbal rebuke. When a US national was executed recently on the flotilla raid the White House contacted Israel as soon as the news broke to express support. I can't think of any other country that enjoys that status. Wars have been declared for much less.