Michael Ramirez for February 17, 2013

Heard a story on NPR where officials were concerned about how much info N. Korea was sharing with Iran. The genie’s lamp might be made in NK.concerned,C.

With the knowledge and technology of the 1940s it was possible to make a couple (and then more) atomic weapons. Any country that wants to spend the money can do it now. North Korea doesn’t even have the money, and it did it anyway. I don’t expect anyone to use a nuclear weapon in the next year, but in the next ten years? In the next 100? In the next 500? We have to bring our moral and political skills up to the level of our technical skills.

Djinni are Arabian entities and Iranians are Aryans.

Ima — just following up on a previous conversation over on Morin. You may remember that I posted as follows: “Just curious — I assume that our conservative posters would agree that the second amendment doesn’t include the right to have nuclear weapons (which, after all, could be made by a terrorist group in the US — certainly a “dirty bomb” at least). My question is Why doesn’t the second amendment include the right to have nuclear weapons? I want a legal argument, not just “Well, that would be horrible” or the like. It’s an open challenge.”+And your reply was: “For one, nukes weren’t around in 1776. My question: Could liberals be any stupider?”+And I then replied to you: “So do you then agree that any weapons invented after 1776 are not covered by the second amendment? (Of course the second amendment wasn’t around in 1776 either, but I suppose a detail like that is beneath the notice of your vast intellect.)”+Since you’re obviously an expert in Constitutional law, you should be able to clarify this point for me, and help me deal with my ignorance and stupidity. Could you please explain your reasoning? In simple terms, please, so a dumb leftie can understand? Is it your position that since nukes weren’t around in 1776 [sic], that they aren’t covered by the second amendment? If so, is it your position that all weapons which weren’t around in 1776 aren’t covered? Or on what legal basis do you make a distinction? Thanks in advance for your help.

“Iran has the full cooperation of O in their developing nuclear weapons. North Korea is full steam ahead. Assad has O’s nod of approval.”

I generally ignore your “comments” (a generous assessment) and don’t get into muck raking, but you are really off in dumb ass land today. Obviously you enjoy spinning people up, but doesn’t it even remotely bother you that you just continually inflame the argument instead of trying to resolve the issues? I know this is just spitting in the wind to even bother posting this, but oh well…

Assad? You really think the Syrians are making progress on a Bomb right now?South Africa had nukes & gave them up. Brazil was working on the ability & was convinced to stop.I think Iran can be convinced that the cost of building operational nukes is not worth it. Aside from sanctions, the actual cost is staggering for a nation with Iran’s GDP & unlike N. Korea, the populace are not completely submissive to everything the regime does.North Korea is much more worrisome than Iran, and it’s going to be up to China to reign in Kim or else replace him.

Initially the British & French supplied Israel with fissiles for nuclear power plants. When the supply was cut off because of concerns over Israel’s bomb building program, the Mossad actually stole uranium from Europe & the U.S. Israel is also believed to have traded nuclear expertise in exchange for uranium from the apartheid government of South Africa in the 70s & 80s.Currently, Israel is trying to mine uranium locally in the Negev Desert.

Well, I’m sorry, too, because I do try to learn, and I always hope that those more knowledgeable and wise than I will share their knowledge and wisdom. I have studied with many wonderful scholars, and I have generally found that they are happy to share what they know.

Thanks, ahab. I appreciate the sentiment in the quotation. I’ve been a student all my life, I honor the people who have taught me, and I try to pass on what I can to the next generation.

Well, I shouldn’t have given in to temptation. But I just wanted an answer to a question. That’ll teach me.

I’m assuming Ms TV is Ms Ima? I grant you that Ms Ima’s comments are usually fairly lame, but honestly, I haven’t seen many that are flag worthy. She says almost nothing more insulting than most liberals on these threads launch at conservatives and vice versa. Why are they more flag worthy than anyone else’s? Honestly, I would like to understand the rationale. If I have misconstrued your comment or you are refering to someone else, my apologies. Thanks.

I would like to see Iran stop its bomb making. I do not see a way to stop them without bad consequences for USA’s interests. Does anyone have a strategic idea on how to act without being very sorry afterwards?

“…What do they believe this will accomplish for them…” The only way to change the thinking of threatening leaders (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) is to give them a brainwashing to a new view of the world. This is a job for Mr. Phelps of the IMF- Impossible Mission Force.

It is good to see Ramirez branching out to satirize something besides the President. I have nothing against cartoonists attacking the President unless it is the only thing they seem to be able to do.