Why would Iran want a nuke?

No, seriously. Why?

Non-state Actors: Which ones? Hamas would say no way in hell. I mean, come on- they want a unified Muslim Palestine, not a Palestine with a mushroom cloud over it! That's crazy! Hizbullah wouldn't do it for the same reason- And Lebanon is smaller too! And Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda hate's Shiites, and wants to install a world-wide caliphate that would rule like the caliphs of old. In other words: No psuedo-democracy in Iran and no Supreme Leader of Iran. Iran wouldn't gain.

Israel: Has second strike capabilities. Al Khamaeni is hardly the least rational man around (the President has no power in that regard), and probably understands that Iran would be wiped out in case of nuclear war. Or, more likely, when it got a nuke. I don't think he wants that. Notice that there has been no direct Israel-Iran War, for instance- simply terrorist allies who have no interest in nukes.

America: See Israel, except Iran would really have to work on delivery systems and build lots and lots of nukes. Did I say lots? Well, we have 10,000 nukes...And we'd probably attack them immediately. Stalin lied about how many nukes the USSR had upon testing because he thought that America would nuke Russia if it thought the Soviet Union had dropped its one and only nuke.

I have a bad feeling he was right.

Soooo why? I think I have an answer:

Didn't the CIA say that Iran ended its Nuclear Weapons Program in 2003? Didn't something happen then?

...OOOoooooooh!

We all know now that Iraq didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction aka Nuclear Weapons and/or chemical weapons. But the 2002-3 debate wasn't about that; even the French thought Saddam had it. In 1991 we learned that Saddam was farther ahead in his nuclear weapons program than was commonly thought. In 1980 Israel striked the Osirak reactor under suspicion of the creation of nukes. And France designed the Nuclear reactor.

And where did Israel get its nuclear technology? FRANCE.

No, I'm not insane. There's a connection.

You see, The French intelligence (probably less faulty than our CIA) also thought that Iraq had WMDs. The French just saw things differently: Did we have to invade just for the suspicion that his nuclear program was ready? Would it be so bad if Iraq had one? Israel's certainly didn't seem to do much. And the French get money out of it by selling technology! Why not?

Iran would say "Us!". And if Iran has stopped its program, it's because we gave them a reason.

Maybe I missed something...why would Iran want a nuke?

Obamamercial

Sooo Obama just said that he's going to give us back our democracy.*

That's rather impressive. Zilch stuff overall, since nothing has changed in the last 30 years or so. That change? 18 year olds can vote. That's it...

Unless he wants to turn us into Switzerland.

You see, Switzerland does have an executive branch, but its legislature tends to do relatively little, since there are lots and lots of referendums. You know: guns, privatizing health care, whether or not Switzerland should join the UN, etc. You might not want America to be a Switzerland, though- all the males are soldiers who have their military equipment nearby at all times. In that way Switzerland will be ready for war with Germany, America, or the Soviet Union. The Swiss even contemplated having a nuke.

And you all know America would ban all forms of taxation if given the chance by referendums.

Or he could mean Libya, where there is no legislature whatsoever, since "everyone" actually votes in all the policies. Well, if it wasn't a Qaddafian dictatorship anyway. But only those who think Obama is a Marxist Muslim Terrorist would actually believe that.

Unfortunately, it probably has nothing to do with political reform- unless you consider unitary Democratic government with a brain-dead Republican opposition a "reform." Sigh...

Just as long as he doesn't want to turn us into Canada, where the Prime Minister is a virtual dictator and the Senate is stuck in the 18th century (where all the senators are appointed by the Prime Minister). I mean, Bush wasn't able to throw the entire Democratic party into Guantanamo. That's because the Congress wouldn't allow it and the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional, among other things.

Besides, our Senate used to be like that. Notice how we gave up on that?

Yeah...just a little annoyed, that's all.

*I haven't actually watched it, but it's nice to hear I actually missed something. He might not have actually said that. Please tell me he didn't say that.

Is this all there is?

It's really, really damn hard to see how Obama can lose this one. Even if he loses the popular vote, it looks like he might win the electoral vote.

Yeah, the Democrats are going to love this.

But surely this won't help much in terms of political reform.

...Wait, what you say?

There are a fair number of people who look at our system and say it sucks. Sure Churchill said it, but I don't mean "Best one possible of all the democratic systems." Look at it! The 2008 election seems to have gone on longer than all of the India-Pakistan and the Israel v. Half of Arabia wars combined. I've been paying attention since 2005. Do you realize how stupid that is? I've been paying attention since Bush's reelection. That's like seeing Blair get reelected and hearing Labor and the Tories wonder who will follow.

Okay, that KIND of happened, but it's not like they tried to keep track of 20 different candidates!

And how about money? In the span of September, Obama raised the net worth of Mitt Romney: $150 million. That's got to be the GDP of more than a few countries! And GDP is how much they produce in a year.

Compare that to Canada, where the campaigns don't seem to drag on nearly as long or are nearly as expensive. Or France and Mexico, where campaigning longer than a set amount of time is actually illegal. Or Britain-

Wait, didn't they just go through a problematic cash-for-peerages scandal?...uh...

Well, how about the electoral vote? Few other countries work that way. And our Congress has made itself a laughingstock in the last 20 years, where a good number of them rely on lobbyists-

Erm,

Well, at least their Prime Minister doesn't, uh...just watch



That guy is now the Prime Minister of Australia.

Okay, so their problems probably have nothing to do with First Past the Post or Proportional Representation systems. Still, our system can't be the best, right? With the end of our own election looming, it might be best to see if we can do any better than this.

Yeah, I'll show you guys ome systems, and it's rather important. After all, our choices are one half of the McCain-Feingold act on campaign finance reform and the other one is, allegedly, a progressive who believes in progress. So let's progress!

First!

Hello World.

Yeah, first blog, shut up.

Anyway, I can't promise much. Thing is, though, I've been reading up on world affairs for quite some time. Of course I have an opinion. We all do. And we all want a way to explain it.

Well, I'm speaking out. How about you?

I mean hell, it's not like I'm talking about videogames.

yet.

................................

So, for what's happening now:

1. Not much, relatively. Aside from a massive financial crisis I don't completely understand, which is pretty much the Most Important Thing Ever.

2. 8...er, 7 days until the Most Important Election Ever Yet is over. too bad I started the blog after all the interesting parts.

You know, when McCain's election was dead. Like, three times.

The horror of Huckabee's victory. And don't forget milking the endorsement for all that it's worth!

Watching the slow descent of Bill Richardson, though his ads were fun.

Giuliani and the Lightning Bolt at the abortion question.

Edwards being transformed from 3rd place to ignored to laughingstock to just plain sad, if...uh, let's not talk about it.

Well, this has been the most entertaining election we've had in some time. Too bad that, in these last few weeks, it's turned into a predictable ending. Ah well!

8 days more, another day, another destiny...
On this never ending road to calvary...