The Iran NIE

People, many, many people, politicians, pundits, and the uninformed masses alike, take it for granted that a nuke is right at the top of Iran’s wish list. For many, it’s a matter of faith that no matter what the objective facts and conclusions show, the mentality of Iran’s leaders makes it inevitable that they’ll do whatever they can to get the bomb, a desire driven by visions of the apocalypse dancing in their heads, and a pathological hatred of Jews; the promise of a second instant holocaust is just too much for them Mullahs to resist!

Along comes the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, and in one fell swoop, all that common wisdom of what Persia’s been up to is seemingly thrown on its head. A flurry of activity, from the talking heads and blogging hands from all sides of those innumerable fences, immediately took off, like dust kicked up by thousands of stampeding wildebeest. For those faithful ones, those who can’t imagine the country being run by people who might not be entirely irrational, they couldn’t believe it. Bullshit, of course they’re working on nukes! This is all part of the CIA's and State Department's War on Bush (that’s one of my favorite lines, and not a bad idea in itself), it has to be, everybody knows those guys’ fingers are getting itchy just at the thought of pushing that big red button. If you don’t think that, you’ve gotta be crazier than they are!

Some of the things various people, seemingly qualified, and not, have had to say:

Justin Milauckas “Iran claims to have 3,000 working centrifuges. If they continue to operate successfully they will create enough fuel for a nuclear weapon in a year. Why, given that the president of Iran has said he wants to dominate the world, would we think Iran’s nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes? The Iranian president calls the Holocaust a “myth” and frequently calls for the destruction of Israel. If we do not act, we run the risk of placating an extremist and making the same mistake we made with Hitler, which led to World War II and the deaths of millions.”

Not to defend the guy or anything, but when people talk about the President of Iran, a Mr. Ahmadinejad, they are given quite about of latitude to mistranslate, misquote, and otherwise pull words right out of their ass and say they came from his mouth. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing Heads of States, and picking apart what they say, just take a look at Mr. Bush, and Mr. Ahmadinejad does do quite a good job of offering up plenty of material, but come on, at least be honest about it! That whole thing about wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the map? Try something a bit closer to him saying the Israeli government will “vanish from the page of time” a la the Soviet government. So, given everything I’ve heard that the man has said, saying he wants to rule the world seems to be out of is rhetorical style, and given the habit of people to put words in his mouth, without any type of sourcing whatsoever, that attribution screams out to me “Bullshit!”

Michael Ledeen “At this point, one really has to wonder why anyone takes these documents seriously. How can anyone in his (there was no female name on the document, nor was any woman from the IC present at the press briefing yesterday) right mind believe that the mullahs are rational? Has no one told the IC about the cult of the 12th Imam, on which this regime bases its domestic and foreign policies?”

What reason do we have to assume that they’re not rational? The “cult” of the 12^th Imam is very easily a totally irrational belief system, but then again, what religion isn’t? Twelver Shi’ism, as it’s known, is also far from being a cult. It is by far the most widespread for of Shi Islam, composing eighty percent of that group. Maybe that should be compared to the cult of the 2^nd Jesus? Our country seems to be in the thralls of people who believe very fervently in that irrational ideology, much to our detriment, but to single out Iran as particularly in the grips of a man who belongs to a cultish group is hypocritical. Why can’t we take a look in the fucking mirror once in a while? That would probably do more good than anything.

Dubya “"If the Russians are willing to do that, which I support, then the Iranians do not need to learn how to enrich," "If the Iranians accept that uranium for a civilian nuclear power plant, then there's no need for them to learn how to enrich." "I think Iran's a danger to peace. My attitude hasn't changed toward Iran. If somebody had a weapons program what's to say they couldn't start it up tomorrow?" "That (intelligence) report says to me, when you read it carefully, Iran was a threat, Iran is a threat to peace, and Iran will be a threat to peace if we don't stop their enrichment facilities."”

One of the ideas that have been floating around, especially since oil has shot up to a c-note a barrel, is that of energy independence and security. To entrust to other nations the responsibility of providing you with the fuel to keep your light bulbs glowing and your cars pumping out noxious fumes isn’t the brightest thing you can do. Some of the campaign promises you hear are about how that particular candidate will work to have America energy independent by 2123, or some other date in the pretty distant future. Why should we expect Iran to be content to rely on fuel shipments from Russia, shipments that could stop at any time, to keep its power plants going? It’s as dumb for them as it is for us to rely on Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and other foreign countries for our fuel.

Another point that Mr. President has made, is that Iran was, is, and will be a threat to peace. How come? Take a look at our countries’ respective track records. From 1979, when the Mullahs took over, Iran has been involved in one war, in the eighties between them and Iraq. We, the USA, supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein when Iraq attacked Iran, in a long, brutal war that killed 1,000,000 Iranians, tens of thousands from chemical weapons that we, the USA and other Western countries sold to Mr. Hussein.

On the other hand, during the eighties, the United States backed brutal death squads throughout Central America, to stave off leftist political gains there. In 1983 the United States invaded the country of Grenada, in 1986 the US bombed Libya, in 1988 we shot down Iran Air Flight 655 killing all 290 on board, in 1989 we invaded Panama, following the end of Operation Desert Storm and continuing until the Iraq War, American backed sanctions led to the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqi children, with periodic bombings just to keep them on edge, from 1994 to 95 up to 20,000 American soldiers were deployed to Haiti, in 1995 the US and NATO bomb Bosnia, in 1998 the US bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, 1999 saw the US and NATO bombing Yugoslavia, we tried to have the hugely popular president of Venezuela overthrown in 2002, in 2003 we invaded Iraq and liked it so much we never left, and in 2004 we helped kick the democratically elected president of Haiti out of his own country.

Yet Iran is the country that is a threat to peace.

Brett Stephens "Equally disingenuous is the NIE's assessment that Iran's purported decision to halt its weapons program is an indication that "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach"--an interesting statement, given that Iran's quest for "peaceful" nuclear energy makes no economic sense.”

Allahpundit “A simple question: Why would Iran, which floats on an ocean of oil, choose to invest in a nuclear energy program instead of upgrading its refining capacity so that it doesn’t have to import gasoline?”

Joe Klein “Even after the new intelligence assessment, Iran's uranium-enrichment program remains troubling to the international community because enrichment is considered the most difficult part of building a nuclear bomb. Iran claims it is enriching the uranium for a peaceful nuclear-power program, but--given its ocean of oil--most international observers don't believe it.”

Stuff like that shows up quite a lot, why on earth would Iran need anything else with it sitting on that ocean of oil and all? It’s an argument that could also be put sort of like this: what would make Iran possibly want to develop and diversify into alternate energy sources, when it could burn away this ocean of money that it’s floating on, you know, burn it at cost instead of selling it abroad and enriching its economy with potentially hundreds billions of dollars, quadrillions of rials, why the fuck wouldn’t they want to burn this immense fortune that a happenstance of geography has given them? Quite right you are, Mr. Stephens, “Iran's quest for "peaceful" nuclear energy makes no economic sense.” Trying to take advantage of something that goes for a hundred bucks a barrel (that’s 933,000 rials) on the open international market makes absolutely no economic sense!

So for them to want to be able to take advantage of this resource, selling it to bring in some extra cash, while still being able to meet their domestic energy needs independently, it doesn’t make an sense, does it? They must be itching to get their hands on their very own nuke. Yeah, that’s it.

Why shouldn’t Iran be able to enrich uranium anyways? The way the world runs, the only reason that there isn’t an anarchic free-for-all like in the good ol’ days, is that international interactions are governed by laws, treaties, and the vast majority of countries imbue those laws with authority, and respect the rights that they give to other nations, and fulfill their obligations under them. Under this system, Iran has the right, as does any nation, to engage in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which only four countries in the world haven’t ratified or have pulled out of (Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea), states that “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” That gives Iran the inalienable right to produce fuel for its civilian nuclear power plants, just as surely as the first amendment of the US Constitution gives me the right to shout “Theater!” in a crowded fire.

What reasons are there to assume that Iran isn’t telling the truth about the nature of its nukes? Even if the National Intelligence Estimate was a ploy by the intelligence community to try to make up for screwing the pooch about Iraq by playing it safe with Iran, it meshes perfectly with what the International Atomic Energy Association has found. On 21 August, 2007, they released a report titled Understandings of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues. The most pertinent parts are to be found in Section IV- General Understandings; to quote it at length, it goes:

“1. These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.

2. The Agency agreed to provide Iran with all remaining questions according to the above work plan. This means that after receiving the questions, no other questions are left. Iran will provide the Agency with the required clarifications and information.

3. The Agency's delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear activities.

4. The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.”

So that gives us a report from the United States, hardly the biggest friend of Persia, saying Iran doesn’t have a program to develop nuclear weapons, and an independent international regulatory organization saying that there is zero evidence that Iran’s intentions are anything but peaceful, and furthermore, there aren’t any unresolved issues or ambiguities surrounding it. What else do we have to go on to believe that that’s not the case? Is it really just because they give us a funny feeling? It seems to me to be an emotional response more than anything; we don’t like them so they can’t be trusted so if they so they’re not trying to get an A-bomb they must be in an all out sprint to get, fuck the facts and fuck objectivity.

Next Stop, Tehran

The risk of the powers-that-be starting another war has never seemed to be higher. Right now, there seems to be a real, coordinated effort to push up support for such a thing, and to attempt to justify it.

If the people pushing for another war, and the people who control whether or not there’ll be one, believe even half of the things they’re saying about Iran, about Iran’s nuclear program, support of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, funding and equipping of Hezbollah, and all the other claims that keep getting thrown around more and more, if they actually believe only half those things, it would be remarkably surprising for them to decide to not go with a military attack.

That was one of the things that most worried me about the Bush administration continuing past 2004, that they would take the extra time they were given to try to redeem themselves for the catastrophe that Iraq turned out to be by trying to go after another country, hopefully with a more successful outcome. The reckless insanity of the whole thing’s something I can’t get my head around.

If and when they do decide to attack, it will be very much different from the fighting faced with the Iraqi military during 2003. Before the war, however many years ago that is now, it was promoted, almost sold, no, not almost, it was sold to the American public and the world like a product would be. The advertising for it touted how easy it would be, its low, rock bottom, super value savings price, which would take care of itself through oil revenues. It was going to be quick acting, lasting only weeks, six months at most. Most of all, it was going to be a miracle cure for most things that were wrong in the world. With Saddam out of power, Al Qaeda would shrivel away from lack of support, elections in Iraq would trigger a tsunami of change which would sweep across the near east, nascent democracies blooming like wildflowers. Americans liked what they saw and bought the product, the rest of the world didn’t.

While there has been a wave of change across the region, it’s gone in a very different direction than what was hoped for and expected. Unfortunately, there is very little truth in advertising. Almost everything they claimed before the war turned out to be false, not just understandable mistake false, but “how in the world could they have been so absolutely wrong about everything?!” false.

They were right about one thing though, the war was easy, at least the war that they thought they were going to fight. That war, the one against military forces acting under the command of Saddam Hussein, and in defense of his baathist government was extremely quick and easy, at least when looked at from a historical perspective. A hundred and fifty thousand troops were able to go into a foreign country, defeat its army, assume uncontested control, and dismantle an entire government in a period spanning from March 20 to May 1, little over a month.

Just two hundred of the invading soldiers were killed in that war. That’s not an insignificant number of people, of lost brothers, fathers, sons, husbands, daughters, wives, mothers, sisters, and best friends. Still, to be able to completely assume control of another country in around a month with around two hundred thousand soldiers, and lose only two hundred of the people on that side is an accomplishment unparalleled in military history.

The war that’s turned out to be not such an easy task is the one that followed those first months. The two wars are altogether dissimilar ones, and it has been the unexpected, disorganized guerrilla war that’s dragged on for five years that’s been the difficult one, not the war against Iraq’s woefully inadequate, ill equipped, and under supplied conventional military.

The efficacy of guerilla warfare is really testified to by the fact that a 400,000 strong military force, equipped with tanks, artillery, and all the armaments of a conventional military, can be defeated in a month by a force half its size, while inflicting only two hundred fatalities to the other side. In contrast, an unorganized, untrained ragtag force of at most a few tens of thousands, armed with assault rifles, RPG’s, roadside bombs, car bombs, and little else, can hold that same two hundred thousand strong army in a stalemate for five years, while inflicting over four thousand casualties. We weren’t sold that war that would come after the war.

If it wasn’t for that one, many of the promises we were told might’ve been kept, though the justification, reason, rationale for the entire escapade would still have turned out to be just as false. If they give the order to launch an attack on Iran, it won’t be nearly as easy as combating an army dilapidated by a decade of military and economic sanctions. The Iranian military is much better equipped, trained, and supplied. Like Iraq, the first part of it wouldn’t cost an excessively high price; the trouble comes, however, from dealing with the aftermath.

I hope, more than anything, that I am wrong about this. I would never be happier for being completely wrong; the problem is that I don’t think I am. Right now, the advertising campaign going on in the media for another war is practically screaming. They’ve got a window of fourteen months left, and while the chances that an attack may happen certainly won’t end after the next president takes office; I’ll certainly be able to breathe a sigh of relief.

Qahtaniya

The war supporters, the cheerleaders have taken to saying that the newest strategy to win the war is finally working; what could be a sign that they might possible be right? How about when the second worst terrorist attack in history happens? With more people killed than in any other attack in history, with the sole exception of September eleventh, yet another tragic milestone has been reached. Before the Tuesday two weeks ago, on the fourteenth, the second highest toll caused by terrorists was 430, twenty nine years ago in Iran, when a movie theater called the Cinema Rex was torched by militants.

Even with the tragic distinction of having only one other attack surpass it, I don’t think that it’s received the amount of coverage and attention that something of this magnitude deserves, it happening in Iraq couldn’t have helped the matter. With daily car bombings and massacres, these types of events can grow to seem routine in their monotony, but still, it is by far the worst bombing of the war, almost three times worse than the next worst one. I’ve asked a few people about it, and not a single one of them knew what happened, or how massive it was. I think that it being worse than anything other than 9/11 is important, something significant that people should at least be aware of, but it’s probably too much to hope for to get people to care.

Even the attempted car bombings in the UK back in June received more attention, despite how incompetent they were. It was all over the news for at least a week, while the only real consequences that those would-be bombers managed to get were setting themselves on fire and getting arrested. They crashed one car bomb, caused another to get towed, then ended up only managing to get one of them burned to death and the others arrested.

Even with the stupidity, incompetence, and failure that those would be terrorists showed, that event received overwhelmingly more coverage than the second worst terrorist attack of all time simply because it happened in London and Glasgow, instead of Qahtaniya and Siba Sheikh Khidir. It’s depressing how much people’s outrage is directly proportional to how similar to them they see the victims to be. It’s how the mentality of “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” takes hold. As long as they’re “not like us”, their lives are expendable in the thousands, if that may provide some possibility of saving a few dozen lives that they identify more with, not only from the US, but from Spain or the United Kingdom.

What does it say when the next to worst terrorist attack that’s ever happened can take place, and hardly any one notices?

The Reply

This was surprising, that fundy Shawn replied promptly to my critique of his video. As I think most of what I wrote were valid criticisms, he helpfully gave a full reply. Here it is, unabridged and all: “Matthew 16:28 'Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.'
Yep, and a chapter or so down the line, the disciples witnessed Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, ascending to heaven in full glory.”

Out of all the points I raised, that one part was, in my opinion, the most minor. I'm waiting to see if that's all he could say.

Aggravating Fundamentalists

There’s this person on YouTube that is eminently aggravating. He goes by the name VenomFangX, and armed with his webcam and a lousy attempt at a moustache, tries to convert viewers to his brand of Biblical Inerrancy Young Earth Creationism Fundamentalism using “rational” and “logical” “arguments” that would “force” any rational person to accept them. My problem with this kid, who’s real name is Shawn, is not with the way he believes, or even his proselytizing. I’ve gotten used to people believing some crazy ass shit, and I generally don’t mind for the most part as long as it doesn’t cause them to harm anybody besides themselves. My problem with him is a combination of his pomposity, his crazy as fuck beliefs, and most importantly, his dishonesty. I hate propaganda of any variety, and what he does could be drawn from the playbook of any professional propagandist. He censors the comments that people can place on his videos so that only those professing saccharine adoration of him will have theirs displayed. The most dishonest thing he does is artificially inflates the ratings that his videos receive. Going through them all, almost every single one has five votes of five stars each, and is then locked to guarantee a permanent rating of the highest order. He rates each of his videos himself, and prevents other people from critiquing them. That is absolutely dishonest, and this little douche-bag, Kirk Cameron wannabe deserves to have the shit kicked out of him. (Figuratively, violence of any kind is usually wrong)

Below the video is my quick response to most of the points he tries to argue. I have no idea if the little repressed fruit will read the email I sent him of what follows, but if he does, I’ll post his reply.

It’s all quite easy to explain really. Isaiah 40:22 “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth”. Notice the absence of a particular word. Can you find it? The word sphere isn’t mentioned anywhere. Maybe you got confused between a sphere and a circle, they are similar. I’ll help you out a little bit. A circle is a curved line surrounding a center point, with every point on the line equidistant from that center. An important thing to bear in mind is that a circle exists in two dimensions, and thus is flat. Now here’s where things get a little tricky, a sphere is defined as a three-dimensional closed surface consisting of all points that are a given distance from a center. Circle=Flat, Sphere=Three-Dimensional. Do you see now how that point disappears? The Bible was saying that the world was circular, i.e. flat, which is entirely compatible with the scientific knowledge of the time. A cynic might believe that you already knew the difference between a circle and a sphere, and chose to replace circle with sphere in that quote because you knew that saying circle wouldn’t guarantee you made your point. Either you were mistaken, or you intentionally misrepresented scripture.

As for your contention that Noah’s Ark is located in eastern Turkey, the man whom you seem to be relying on for your interpretation of what it is (presumably because you like that that specific interpretation validates your beliefs) is a guy named Ron Wyatt. He was trained as a nurse-anesthetist, and lacked any training in basic geological science or biblical history. People who are actually trained in the relevant fields have examined the formation that you believe to be the Ark, and found it to be a natural geological structure. The “anchor stones” that you point out where of a variety of rock unknown in Mesopotamia, the place where Noah supposedly constructed his Ark, but of course, with god on your side, bringing in stones from hundreds of miles away wouldn’t be much of a problem. If you are so inclined (I doubt you are), you can look at something that isn’t completely pseudoscience at http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html

About Sodom and Gomorrah, ancient cities have been completely buried by volcanoes before you know; have you ever heard of Pompeii and Herculaneum? Moreover, the examples of architecture on the website you so helpfully suggested, look, to my untrained eye, much like natural formations that I have seen myself throughout the Southwestern US. The presence of Gypsum crystals is hardly conclusive proof of fire and brimstone reacting with limestone, yet alone proof that the locations in question are those two cities.

Do you have any idea how many black mountains there are? They aren’t particularly rare, especially in places with a history of volcanism.

Ah, the field of Biblical Prophecy. Would it be fair to assume that you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of god? Now, if we are examining the question of whether the Bible is the inerrant word of god, or it isn’t, to prove that it isn’t, all you would need to do is find one place where it gets it wrong. God in all his perfection couldn’t make one mistake or otherwise he wouldn’t be perfect. Likewise, for the Bible to be a perfect book, it always has to be right. Am I right about this? So take a look at Matthew 16:28 “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” That is prophecy, and in it, Jesus is saying that some of the people that he is talking to at that specific moment in time will live to see the second coming. Everyone present to hear Jesus speak those words has been dead for more than 1,900 years, but Jesus still hasn’t showed. What gives?

Domino Theory

The Iraq War’s architects espoused a neo-domino theory in support of it. Where in Southeast Asia, it was feared that if one country fell to the onslaught of Communism, another would follow, and then another, like a chain of dominoes. In Southwest Asia, it was, and in some circles still is, hoped that if one country, in this case Iraq, could be converted to a Western style liberal democracy, others in the region would follow. An assumption of theirs was that democratic Arab states would be inherently more pro-American, anti-extremism. This doesn’t seem like it would necessarily be the case, considering the electoral victory of Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Mahmoud Ahmadenijad in Iran.

So they assumed that planting the seed of democracy in Mesopotamia would allow it to flourish throughout the region, eventually supplanting the widespread hatred of America with an oasis of pro-western thought. It’s not that democracy is the end in its self, it’s merely a means. Otherwise the base fact of elections would please them; instead, they condemn the results when the winner is a group or a person that they don’t approve of. While there have been elections in countries through out the near east, these may be in spite of what is happening in Iraq, and not inspired by it.

Also, an election does not make a democracy. A democracy must be embraced by the populous, and the entire form of government must be based around it. Without that foundation, an election will not accomplish anything. There are elections in Cuba, China, and Iran; there were elections in Saddam’s Iraq. Elections do not make a democracy.

A different sort of domino effect seems to have happened. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, extremism and terrorism has flourished, arriving in places that it hadn’t been before, at least not in its present form. It has destabilized the region, leading to additional wars, and setting the stage for civil wars in other countries.

Instead of engendering peace, just last war there was a war between Israel and Lebanon that took over 1,500 lives in the course of a month. Right now, internecine fighting between rival Palestinian factions has raised the threat of a Palestinian civil war. Right now, the worst infighting in Lebanon since the end of their civil war seventeen years ago is occurring. Since 2003 there has been a low-level insurgency against the Saudi monarchy. There has been an increase in terrorism in England, Spain, Turkey, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Jordan, and Egypt. There have been many attempted attacks in many other countries as well.

If the goals of the Iraq war were to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction, establish a liberal democracy in Iraq, hinder the efforts of Al Qaeda and related groups, promote democracy throughout the region, liberate the people of Iraq, and ensure the security of the United States, it has been a failure on every account.

Poignant Parallels from A Dissenter’s Guide to Foreign Policy, or How History Repeats its Self

Here's how this works; first, every time it says "Vietnam" put in its place "Iraq", then where appropriate, substitute "Iran" or "Syria" for "China", "Islamofascism" for "Communism", "Arab" for "Asian", and so forth. None of this was written after 1968, yet you can hear the echoes across time.

“During the past fifteen years the two major triumphs of Chinese policy have been in Korea and Vietnam. In Korea, by hurling American forces back to the 38^th parallel, China proved to the world that it was a power to be reckoned with. In Vietnam it watches the Americans bleed, the Vietnamese grow increasingly disaffected, and the Asian masses grow more anti-American, without having to expend much of its material resources or any military manpower.” Pg. 85-6

“Consider, by way of contrast, our record in Vietnam. The other war, the effort to “pacify” the countryside, is, after eleven years and many billions of dollars, still “at the beginning of a beginning”-to quote Senator Mike Mansfield’s words. Imagine the outcry if the U.S. Army was to be put in charge of flagging Head Start programs in Mississippi and Alabama. The decision to transfer authority over pacification efforts to the American military command in South Vietnam is no less ludicrous. Men engaged in a shooting war, exposed to a totally different cultural experience, are being asked to teach the Vietnamese how to achieve stability, freedom, and democracy. The notion that their efforts hold any promise of success is nonsense on stilts.” Pg. 79

“Every opportunity to rely on multilateral rather than bilateral relations ought to be pursued. Every effort to create and utilize supranational agencies ought to be made. This obligation falls most heavily on those nations that are currently most powerful; for they have the defensive power that make them less liable to suffer vital injury through pursuit of this realistic goal. This is why the decision of the United States to bypass the United Nations in Vietnam is perhaps the greatest of the many tragedies of that pointless war.” Pg. 92

“A justification may be argued in domino theories or indefensible analogies with Europe in the 1930s, or warnings that if we don’t fight here we soon will have to fight… in Hawaii or California.” Pg. 98

“In Vietnam an American preoccupation with the freedom and well-being of other men, morally inspired but sentimental in its analysis of real possibilities, has converged with an American fear of Communism which naively exaggerates the unity, power, and threat of the Communist movement.” Pg. 100

“The second argument currently being made relies on the character of guerilla warfare. By the special use they make of the civilian population, it is said, the guerillas themselves destroy all conventional distinctions.” Pg. 308

Addendum

I have to put this up under a new post because I don’t want to go through all the trouble of formatting all the tables in the previous one, I’m lazy, it’s a character flaw. How I came up with the worth of states in comparison to that of Florida was this: I took every state’s population and divided it by its electoral votes. I saw that Florida had the largest number of people to each of its votes, so I chose to use that as a baseline. Taking the number of people per electoral vote for each state, I used that number to divide that of Florida’s to come up with how many times that of Florida it is worth. The only thing special about my choice as a baseline is that it allowed every state to have a number greater than 1.

Inequity In the Electoral College

This is some "analysis" I did of the possibilities and characteristics of the way that the Electoral College is set up.

States won by 1	Population	Electoral Votes	States won by2	Population	Electoral Votes
California	36132147	55	North Carolina	8683242	15
Texas	22859968	35	Virginia	7567465	13
New York	19254630	31	Massachusetts	6398743	12
Florida	17789864	27	Missouri	5800310	11
Illinois	12763371	21	Tennessee	5962959	11
Pennsylvania	12429616	21	Washington	6287759	11
Ohio	11464042	20	Arizona	5939292	10
Michigan	10120860	17	Maryland	5600388	10
Georgia	9072576	15	Minnesota	5132799	10
New Jersey	8717925	15	Wisconsin	5536201	10
Indiana	6271973	11	Alabama	4557808	9
	166876972	268	Colorado	4665177	9
			Kentucky	4173405	9
			Louisiana	4523628	8
			South Carolina	4255083	8
			Connecticut	3510297	7
			Iowa	2966334	7
			Oklahoma	3547884	7
			Oregon	3641056	7
			Arkansas	2779154	6
			Kansas	2744687	6
			Mississippi	2921088	6
			Nebraska	1758787	5
			Nevada	2414807	5
			New Mexico	1928384	5
			West Virginia	1816856	5
			Hawaii	1275194	4
			Idaho	1429096	4
			Maine	1321505	4
			New Hampshire	1309940	4
			Rhode Island	1076189	4
			Utah	2469585	4
			Alaska	663661	3
			D.C.	550521	3
			Delaware	843524	3
			Montana	935670	3
			North Dakota	636677	3
			South Dakota	775933	3
			Vermont	623050	3
			Wyoming	509294	3
				129533432	270
Total Voters	85107255		Total Voters	77720059
Votes Won	85107255	___268	Votes Won	39637230	[270
Votes Lost	0		Votes Lost	38082829
Vote Total 2	124744485		Vote Total 3	39637230

That table shows how it would be possible for a candidate to receive in excess of 75% of the popular vote, yet still lose due to the electoral count, and that is with clear majority wins in every single state, not pluralities brought on by three or more candidates. If you included those possibilities, the discrepancy would be even larger. The situation has one candidate winning states worth 268 electoral votes, and carrying them with 100% of the vote. The remaining states are split 51/49 in favor of the other candidate. While such an occurrence is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible, it highlights what I believe to be a deep flaw in the means by which we elect our commander in chief. The pie chart below illustrates the incongruency very well:

The following table expresses the relative worth of each individual vote, as compared in multiples of Florida, which I found has the least value of any other state.

State	Population	Electoral Votes	Per Vote	Rank	Worth (Multiples of Florida)
Alabama	4557808	9	506423	24	1.3
Alaska	663661	3	221220	5	2.98
Arizona	5939292	10	593929	43	1.11
Arkansas	2779154	6	463192	19	1.42
California	36132147	55	656948	50	1.003
Colorado	4665177	9	518353	27	1.27
Connecticut	3510297	7	501471	23	1.31
D.C.	550521	3	183506	2	3.59
Delaware	843524	3	281174	8	2.34
Florida	17789864	27	658883	51	1
Georgia	9072576	15	604838	45	1.09
Hawaii	1275194	4	318798	10	2.07
Idaho	1429096	4	357274	14	1.84
Illinois	12763371	21	607779	46	1.08
Indiana	6271973	11	570179	36	1.16
Iowa	2966334	7	428047	17	1.54
Kansas	2744687	6	457447	18	1.44
Kentucky	4173405	9	463711	20	1.42
Louisiana	4523628	8	565453	35	1.17
Maine	1321505	4	330376	12	1.99
Maryland	5600388	10	560038	34	1.18
Massachusetts	6398743	12	533228	31	1.24
Michigan	10120860	17	595344	44	1.11
Minnesota	5132799	10	513279	26	1.28
Mississippi	2921088	6	486848	22	1.35
Missouri	5800310	11	527300	29	1.25
Montana	935670	3	311890	9	2.11
Nebraska	1758787	5	351757	13	1.87
Nevada	2414807	5	482961	21	1.36
New Hampshire	1309940	4	327485	11	2.01
New Jersey	8717925	15	581195	40	1.13
New Mexico	1928384	5	385676	16	1.71
New York	19254630	31	621117	48	1.06
North Carolina	8683242	15	578882	39	1.14
North Dakota	636677	3	212225	4	3.1
Ohio	11464042	20	573202	38	1.15
Oklahoma	3547884	7	506840	25	1.3
Oregon	3641056	7	520150	28	1.27
Pennsylvania	12429616	21	591886	42	1.11
Rhode Island	1076189	4	269047	7	2.45
South Carolina	4255083	8	531885	30	1.24
South Dakota	775933	3	258644	6	2.55
Tennessee	5962959	11	542087	32	1.22
Texas	22859968	35	653141	49	1.009
Utah	2469585	4	617396	47	1.07
Vermont	623050	3	207683	3	3.17
Virginia	7567465	13	582112	41	1.13
Washington	6287759	11	571614	37	1.15
West Virginia	1816856	5	363371	15	1.81
Wisconsin	5536201	10	553620	33	1.19
Wyoming	509294	3	169764	1	3.88

As you can see, most of the states have similar worths to Florida, while a few peak much higher than the rest. In particular, a vote in Wyoming is worth nearly four times as much as a similar vote in Florida, with Washington DC not being very far below Wyoming.

Worth	# of States
1	3
1.1	10
1.2	9
1.3	7
1.4	5
1.5	1
1.7	1
1.8	2
1.9	1
2	2
2.1	2
2.3	1
2.5	1
2.6	1
3	1
3.1	1
3.2	1
3.6	1
3.9	1

The preceding table shows the distribution of vote value among the states. States worth 3 or more times Florida are very rare, with only 5 of them, making up less than one-tenth of the total. On the other hand, states worth less than twice that of Florida number 39. This next chart contains the same information as the table above, just in a more aesthetic way.

One of the bedrock fundamentals of the idea of the United States of America is equal justice under law. As it stands now, people's votes in presidential elections are far from equal. When someone's vote is worth nearly four times that of another's, that is not an example of equal treatment under the law. The way it is set up now should be changed; the Electoral College doesn't work in a country that values equality. It should be replaced with direct popular voting, Instant Run Off Voting, or any of a number of alternatives that provide for every single person's vote to be worth and treated the same. No one should be granted special statuses, or lesser ones.