>>>>It was revealed today that Iran has been hiding a nuclear facility...

Revealed by whom?

Pending identification of the revealer, I am reminded of the weather-study labs that prompted GWB to declare, "We found the weapons of mass destruction!"

Per your question, I don't frequent any conservative websites. Life's too short. I have read Thomas Sowell from time to time over the years, and he is, in my opinion, an idiot.

I think that reasoned discourse has been in exceedingly short supply on the right for some time.

The most intellectually satisfying writing by an American conservative that I can recall reading was Russell Kirk's book The Conservative Mind. Of course, that was written a long time ago, when conservatism, at least arguably, stood for something more principled than merely hating liberals and fellating Republicans.

When I asked "revealed by whom," I wasn't trying for a "magic comeback." I was unaware of the news that you stated had been revealed, and so I wanted to know who revealed it. Given all the breathless reports of Iraqi WMD that turned out to be lies or fantasies, I'm sure you can understand why purported revelations about Iranian WMD tend to elicit skeptical responses.

Thanks for the kind words.

I fear, however, that the people who come here and rant like insane Jews are, in fact, insane Jews.

So it goes.

Shouldn't you be in Shul?

:-)

>>>You could have made the same arguments against Nazi Germany, and they would be equally valid.

No, they wouldn't, actually. I'm no fan of the Iranian regime, not by a long shot, but I would point out that Iran has a Jewish population that has not been herded into camps and appears to be in no danger. And that Iran hasn't invaded anyone for a long time.

I don't think one has to be Jewish to find your comparison of Iran to Nazi Germany both illogical and offensive. But as a Jew, I think such comparisons trivialize the reality and legacy of the Holocaust, as well as the gravity of Nazi Germany's other crimes, none of which is remotely analogous to anything Iran has ever done.

It almost pains me to see you devoting your valuable time to refutation of WinSmith's "points." The poor lad is clearly off his meds again.

Was Ahmedinejad also misquoted in describing the Holocaust as a Jewish hoax? According to Juan Cole, who is fluent in Farsi, that is what Mr. A recently said in a speech so virulently anti-Semitic that the good Professor Cole felt the need to take a shower after translating it.

I do not support preventive military action by anyone. But I do understand why Israel and its friends would find the idea of Mr. A's government going nuclear a little bit unnerving.

All your points in response to me are well taken.

I've said it before, I think Iran's desire for nuclear weapons (assuming Iran indeed has such a desire) is perfectly rational. Iran has enemies, and its enemies have nuclear capability and have been known to go for the first strike. And I agree with you that using military force to try to prevent the inevitable would be both ineffective & immoral.

I just wish Ahmedinejad wasn't such a rancid piece of dogshit. Or that his government would at least repudiate his poisonous, Jew-hating rhetoric, instead of ratifying it by silence. To the extent that Jews do influence anything, that would, you know, help.

Prognosis guarded right now. He was obviously unconscious and severely concussed. Stuff like that makes me feel like a bad person for liking football so much.

Regarding your earlier suggestion that Mr. Ahmedinejad doesn't speak for the Iranian government -- if that is true, then what exactly was he doing at the United Nations?

Iokannan - as shown at the UN and elsewhere, Ahmedinejad is the face and the voice that the government of Iran chooses to present to the world. You can't wish that away, no matter how many times you limn Iran's governmental structure and hierarchy.

Omooex - I don't think that declining to enter into a treaty makes a country "rogue." All countries are free to make treaties, or not, as they choose. Countries that choose to be party to a given agreement are obligated to comply with its requirements, and countries that don't, aren't. In other words, Iran's obligations under a treaty to which it is a signatory have nothing to do with Israel, particularly given that Israel is not a signatory.

>>>I don't see how, under such circumstances, one could seriously call Iran a rogue state, while not applying the term to Israel.

I haven't called Iran a rogue state, and I don't think it is one. I don't think Israel is either. (The US, maybe...)

>>>If the treaty is so important that sanctions have to be levied on member states that don't live up to their obligations, then it should be important enough to lodge those same sanctions on states that won't join the treaty.

No way. A treaty, by definition, is a voluntary agreement between or among sovereign nations, who agree to be bound by the treaty's provisions. Sanctioning a country to force it to comply with the terms of a treaty that it never agreed to would be contrary to international law, as well as to logic. A group of countries cannot get together and agree among themselves, call it a treaty, and then announce that the whole world must comply or be punished.