1. Christopher Hitchens lets loose: “Plame Out: The Ridiculous End to the Scandal That Distracted Washington”.
2. And speaking of Plamegate….Just let it go, Jason. Just. Let. It. Go. (Via Colossus; AJ Strata has more).
3. Oh. And did I mention that Joe Wilson traveled to Niger to check out AQ Khan a full 3 years before checking on Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions? Wilson found nothing amiss with the Khan network, either.
Which leads me to believe that unless some careless operative set off a small nuclear explosion in the lobby of whatever luxury hotels Wilson stayed in during his fact-finding missions, he wasn’t likely to find anything amiss anywhere ever. (h/t Terry Hastings)
4. Continuing along on the nuclear theme, TAP’s Matthew Yglesias, writing at Talking Point Memo, suggests that Iran is hardly the threat our foreign policy elites and the “fever swamps” of the right wing blogosphere are making them out to be. The Mullahs, having been in power so long, are clearly rational actors content with power and wouldn’t risk that power for any kind of doomsday scenario. Therefore, Iran’s having nuclear weapons would not be the end of the world, either figuratively or literally.
Yglesias’ analysis, however, relies on a western concept of time and patience (as opposed to the long-view favored by those still pining, ostensibly and religiously at least, for a return to the 7th Century)—and doesn’t factor in the biggest single data point that could be predictive of Iran’s behavior: the fact that they haven’t yet HAD nuclear weapon’s capabilities.
Which, let’s face it, that’s quite the calculus changer.
Similarly, the Iranian government is a serious risk to provide nukes to proxy organizations, be in Hezbollah or some satellite organization of al Qaeda—which means that an Iran with nuclear weapons could upset not only the geopolitical strategic balance of power in the region, but indeed would have a tangible impact on the social structure of the West, in terms of immigration, trade, etc.
Dan Riehl has more (h/t Charles Johnson).
5. Video: An Arab secularist woman speaking the truth about Islam. Not something you see every day, that’s for sure (via Gregg Jackson)
6. After prom night? He should get into a sports car and crash it into a tree. Then he’d really go out as a legend. Because trust me, it’s all downhill after this.
7. From Glenn Reynolds’ new TCS column: “In a democratic polity—or even one that’s driven by things like ‘world opinion’—faked news poses a real threat to decent decision-making.” When “truths” are contingent, “faked news” becomes something of a strategic ploy in the service of a larger will to power. And from that perspective, it is much easier to justify: after all, it’s being done in the service of a greater good.
I feel like I’ve been saying the same thing for years now—that such behavior, when it comes from the media in particular, undermines the efficacy of democracy—but it is a message worth repeating over and over (h/t Some Guy in Chicago, who adds: “[…] we as citizens (and those who serve as journalists) have to understand that misleading photos and reports are not merely forgivable bits of propoganda that we expect, but it is explicitly a tactic of warfare. By corrupting our public intelligence sources, America could be prone not only to dangerous inaction when called upon, but also to engaging in dangerous activities because we have been falsely led to believe we need to do such”).
8. My head feels like it’s been invaded by, well, something. But whatever it is, it’s carrying a big bag of mucus. Bastard.
Jeff–
It’s probably a pukka. Bastards take their mucus bags and infiltrate the sinuses and cause all sorts of mischief. If you haven’t got a hedge-witch in your area, there’s bugger all you can do about it, except keep on with the megadoses of Ny-Quil. They hate that evils shit.
Best,
I wonder if Yglesias would be so sanguine about Iran’s nuclear prospects if he had any close relatives living in Israel.
Because as soon as you get the bomb, the natural thing to do is turn it over to people outside of your control. But maybe I’m being too Western here.
You might want to write that down somewhere actus, I would imagine it is a fairly important word for a lawyer-type person to understand.
B Moe,
You missed the thread at Patterico’s where he stated that it’s not as though judges have any police minions to do their bidding.
Or maybe you’re just being your usual stupider-than-a-box-of-hammers self.
Maybe.
I negotiate a lot of deals in my work. My colleagues and I have a favorite phrase for when someone tries to lever you by threatening to do something so stupid it will screw both him and you. We call this the “Cleavon Little” school of negotiating: i.e., don’t force me to put the gun to my head and blow my brains out.
In some ways the whole concept of MAD or deterrence on whicb people like Yglesias have fallen in love with these days is like that: the theory is if both sides have everything to lose, neither will do something stupud.
I’ve been thinking (probably too hard) about this lately, since it has become the favorite leftist talking point as to why its not a bad thing for Iran to get the bomb. The problem, as I see it, it that our experience in the 20th century shows that setting up a system between states that results in a Cleavon Little situation has worked only once (the cold war), and failed twice. To wit: the various entanglements that led to WWI were designed in part to make a large scale war so terrible that no one (dare I say no rational actor) would dare risk starting a war. Similarly, after WWI, the treaty of Versailles was again designed to be a deterrent whereby the victors of the first war specified certain circumstances that, if undertaken by the vanquished, would lead the victors to go to war.
Both pre cold-war attempts to create a system that would deter a perceived agressor from starting a war failed. In the case of the pre WWI alliances, they failed because Austria-Hungary and Germany miscalculated the response of the Western Powers. In the case of the treaty of Versailles, it failed because the victors of WWI lacked the will to go to war to impose the suffering on Germany that the treaty said would result if Germany took certain steps (rearming, occupying the Rhineland before a date certain, etc.).
The deterrence of the cold war worked because neither the US or the Soviet Union (or their allies) miscalculated the response of the other, and because neither side faced a loss of will sufficient to trigger an all-out war (in general – our response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan notwithstanding). That being said, the cold war turned “hot” in a number of places and times, and in at least one instance almost led to an actual shooting war between the main contestants.
The upshot of this long-winded speech is that nothing is as simple or automatic as leftists like Yglesias like to think. Ok, so Iran gets the bomb. Does Yglesias really think that just means things in the middle east will stabilize because Iran will realize it is safe from invasion by the US and Israel? Or that it will mean no more combat between the US and Iran and their proxies because the consequences are too high? The Cleavon Little school of negotiating only works if the side without the gun pointed to his head calls the bluff of the one who does. So, if Iran gets the bomb, we should expect more violence, not less, and more involvement required of the US to stop Iran from expanding its hegemony in the ME, or providing nukes to other states or organizations, or holding the world oil market hostage. Is that really the situation the left wants? A return to the good old days of the cold war? Someone needs to explain to me in language I can understand why deterrence will prevent Iran from going to war when it has largely failed in the past. Something does not make sense to me.
Vizsla–
I like the word, “stupud”; may I steal it?
This is the key point in your very thoughtful analysis, Viszla. We now know that in some instances the correct calculation was a very close run thing. The Cuban missile crisis is the favored example, but there were others (one as recently as the late 90’s when Yeltsin had to make the call on whether a Norwegian weather rocket was a US Trident attack).
The command and control features of the US, Soviet (Russian), British, French, Israeli and, to a lesser extent, Chinese arsenals are constructed to require decision makers to consider the gravity of use. The weaker C&C structures of the Pakistani, Indian, and prospective Iranian arsenals make miscalculation and nuclear war through simple human and/or mechanical error a very worrisome prospect.
There is no argument that will sell a “safe” nuclear-armed Iran to me. To those who believe we shouldn’t worry, I’ll suggest it again: Read The Gathering Storm–especially the sections on German rearmament.
We seek life, they are enraptured by martyrdom and the nuclear bomb.
We can seek a happy medium – nuke them and put it on pay-per-view, thus causing an even higher spike in conservative pregnancies.
Hydrate thyself, Jeff. Piss that little microbial fucker right out of your bloodstream.
Awful dark where those fools have their heads shoved.
I think you’re right. I forgot the relevancy of agency concepts to Iranian nuclear relations. They’ll make sure to only hand stuff over to people they control. And they’ll keep that control via their magical mullah powers.
Actus,
You’re on the other fucking side as your ignorant, infantile, vapid postings prove. If you actually say that Iran doesn’t control Hezbollah with an iron grip, Jeff should ban you on the basis of gross stupidity. As the mullahs are so dreamy–how about you shoving off to Qom and throwing your CAIR talking points around to a friendly audience?
In 1938 you’d have perfected your goosestep and magic-markered-in a moustache.
Idiot.
Relax, wishbone. Calm. Deep breaths…
Actus, once again you’re never so close to correct as when you think you’re being sarcastic.
It doesn’t matter whether or not we, or you, think they have Magic Mullah Powers. It’s not even important whether they do have Magic Mullah Powers. What’s important is that they think they have Magic Mullah Powers and will act accordingly. Which they do, most definitely.
For a sane person, the example of Nasrallah would at least lead to questions about the existence of Magic Mullah Powers. But what he actually demonstrates is what the rest of us are in for if the mullahs get more power. Secure in their belief in the strength of their Mad Mullah Powers, they will hand them over to people they think are acting as their agents. The people who get them will have their own agendas—everybody has an agenda, though some manage to subordinate them and more hide them—and the results aren’t predictable.
You can see that. I can see that. Wishbone can see that. But the mullahs can’t see that—because they’re as absolutely, rock-hard certain of their Mad Mullah Powers as moonbats are of the Democrat Party being the last best hope of Mankind.
Which is what’s dangerous.
Regards,
Ric
Yes actus, they will continue to arm and finance groups who continue to do their bidding because they depend on them for weapons and money. I suppose that type of relationship would seem magical to some people, like how some people think the Muppets are real and shit.
Instapundit also links to the Hitchens piece, and after an excerpt, Glenn Reynolds writes this;
(emphesis mine)
Does this strick anyone else as really, really fucked up?
*Strike* that is…
Not entirely, lee. The list of people who should have been held accountable for 9/11 doesn’t begin and end with Tenet, but he’s in there somewhere. Aside: As an institution Congress got off almost scott-free except for some language in the commission report–I still think their actions on intelligence matters in the 1975-2000 timeframe should be held up to more crutiny.
P.S.: Porter Goss definitely wasn’t the answer either.
So in actusworld I guess this means that the Viet Cong didn’t do what the NV told ‘em to do, the FMLN didn’t dance to Castro’s tune and the Contras didn’t listen to Washington.
Next thing you know he’ll be telling us the Northern Cypriot Turks are totally free and independent of Ankara.
THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS PROXIES OR PUPPETS – MOVE ALONG, NOTHING TO THINK ABOUT HERE.
That’s true wishbone, but I was talking about ”this only makes Bush look bad”
I see Jason Leopold will still be spinning fantasy/conspiracy theories long after the facts have left out there with the people that think the X-files is a documentary series, not a drama.
Cruelly, I cannot wait for the SEALED vs. SEALED indictment to be unsealed someday and find out it is some common drug case or kiddie porn sting. I wonder what fantastic theory Jason will come up with to ‘splain that one away, heh heh.
You guys can work on retrofitting this, if you like, for Jason Leopold:
Like a fool I went and stayed too long
Now Im wondering if your loves still strong
Oo baby, here I am, signed, sealed delivered, Im yours
Then that time I went and said goodbye
Now Im back and not ashamed to cry
Oo baby, here I am, signed, sealed delivered, Im yours
Here I am baby
Oh, youve got the future in your hand
(signed, sealed delivered, Im yours)
Here I am baby,
Oh, youve got the future in your hand
(signed, sealed, delivered, Im yours)
Ive done alot of foolish things
That I really didnt mean
Hey, hey, yea, yea, didnt i, oh baby
Seen alot of things in this old world
When I touched them they did nothing, girl
Oo baby, here I am, signed, sealed delivered, Im yours, oh Im yours
Oo-wee babe you set my soul on fire
Thats why I know you are my only desire
Oo baby, here I am, signed, sealed delivered, Im yours
Here I am baby
Oh, youve got the future in your hand
(signed, sealed delivered, Im yours)
Here I am baby,
Oh, youve got the future in your hand
(signed, sealed, delivered, Im yours)
Ive done alot of foolish things
That I really didnt mean
I could be a broken man but here I am
With your future, got your future babe (here I am baby)
Here I am baby (signed, sealed delivered, Im yours)
Here I am baby, (here I am baby)
Here I am baby (signed, sealed delivered, Im yours)
Here I am baby, (here I am baby)
Here I am baby (signed, sealed delivered, Im yours)
More like, in my world, the NV would never have trusted the VC with nukes.
Oh there are plenty. But nuclear armed ones?
Let’s see–what sets President Ahmannutjob in Tehran apart from ALL the other nuclear-armed leaders in history–oh yeah, the whole “Let’s wipe another country off the map” thing.
Just ignore that, actus. It will continue to make you feel better in the ironclad knowledge that he would NEVER hand a nuke off to a proxy. NEVER. 40,000 rockets maybe. Anti-ship missiles maybe. But NEVER a nuke.
Thank god my vote cancels yours out.
Strategy-wise, an Iran that spun off small nukes and provided them one at a time under adult supervision (kinda like the anti tank and anti ship missles in Lebanon) to its various proxies reads to me like huge win.
This strategy gives a layer of innocence… as in “wtf, a rogue element stole the dang thing and blew up the jews”…. which would be ggod enough for the UN, good enough for France.
The strategy gives real clout in the region if the US does not respond by crushing Iran (no half measures).
If I had nukes and wanted to dominate my region, I’d use this strategy to avoid a catastrophic US response. I’d wait for a Democrat President and act like it was all a rogue element. I’d jail a few Kurds and infidels… maybe sacrificing a few untrustworthy cabinet members. I’d hide a few small nukes and then invite the UN to look at the sites I chose (like Iraq under Saddam did). I’d offer oil deals to France and China, cut hard currency construction deals for construction and arms with Russia, spread cash around the third world and particularly around the third world muslim faithful wait a couple years and then hit Europe via proxy.
Now, if he had said “we will bury you,” then conservatives would have said that we were dealing with a rational agent that could be deterred.
SteveG’
Ixnay on the ratergystay, koay?!
Can you come up with an example of exactly what bone Iran has to pick with Israel that even remotely matches US and Soveit strategic rivalry, actus?
Until you can back up your Khruschev-quote snarks with some thoughtful material perhaps you should just shut the fuck up. You also want to try my earlier post in the thread on command and control issues–but again that would require thought instead of your usual “aren’t I the clever one” routine.
Trust me when I tell you there is nothing clever about Actus or any of the other western infidels currently joining up. I know. They provide us with their college transcripts. They are the entire reason your SAT scores are going down. But you go to war with the fifth column you have. We have to make them do.
Concerning point seven, namely the systematic use of language not to elucidate the truth but rather to manipulate others in an attempt to acquire and maintain power, here’s a quote from 20th century philosopher Josef Pieper from his essay “Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power (1974)”:
While discusing whether or not we should allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons, we also need to talk about whether or not it is possible to stop them. Noth Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, and South Africa all developed nuclear weapons independently- a drunken Japanese general stated that Japan is ready to produce nukes “in a very short time” if it feels the need to(I imagine this applies to South Korea also). The technology and expertise required to make nukes has diffused so broadly that it seems a future in which a large number of states possess at least some of the weapons is almost inevitable (though obviously not desirable).
This is rather frightening when one thinks in terms of religious fanatics; the idea of safety through M.A.D. does not apply: the WHOLE POINT of suicide bombing is mutually assured destruction (and tasty virgins, mmmm, virgins…)
I didn’t think it was possible for actus to get any dumber.
I was wrong.
Evidently is was possible and above demonstrated it. As actus evidently can’t even recall that Iran does control Hezbollah and if it puts weapons into Hezbollah’s territory that it wants more positive control of, it sends revolutionary guard with them.
Which is why the Israelis found iranians among the Hezbollah troops in Lebanon. And its who probably fired the anti-ship missile at the Israeli corvette.
Some village out there is definitely missing their idiot.
Darrah, you silly infidel, listen to Actus…suicide bombers and those who arm them are rational actors. No worries. Life is a Bobby McFerrin tune. So long as we can stop the evil Bushitler.
If the Iranians are being strategic, then they’ll probably not shake up stuff too much. They’ve got more influence in Iraq than they’ve had in decades, the US is there—getting smacked around—and can’t leave. And what does Iran have to do? move around some money and help their shiite bros ward off sunni militias and terrorists.
My guess is they won’t want to rock that situation too much.
I was curious how you knew about the command and control in Iran, India and Pakistan. I’d think those things would be secret.
I’m sorry, but I’ve become very tired with being forebearing toward actus. He’s apparently operating under the delusion that he brings a unique perspective to these blogs. He doesn’t. He commits the unforgivable blogging sin of being predictable and boring. He’s just plain contrarian in the drabbest, most reductive sense of the word. I wish I could say that he’d assuaged my estimate of the threat posed by fundamentalist Islam, but he hasn’t provided any reasonable critique. When some Egyptian clerical loon tells us that he’s given al-Qaeda permission to cull 10 million Americans by nuclear holocaust, for some reason I believe that he’s being serious. When Iranians say that it’s going to take them a lot less payload to annihilate Israel, it being so much smaller, than for Israel to annihilate it, and that anyone killed in such an exchange of megatonnage would be a martyr (on their side), call me nuts, but I believe that’s what they mean. When the UN can’t get half of the 15k force to put into southern Lebanon that they want because everyone’s afraid that they may have to disarm Hizb by force, I can only imagine what it’s going to be like when the Iranians have nukes. You suck, actus. Why don’t you do what most rational people would do, and go where your idiotese is appreciated and understood? You’re incredibly tiresome. Fuck off.
And you kufirs only have to put up with him here. We’re stuck with him twenty-four hours a day. It’s enough to amke a man wish to don the suicide vest himself, rather than hang it on retarded teen agers.
On the topic of myths about Bush and Iraq being shattered I’d like to invite the readers of this blog to my interview with top Clinton advisor Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson about what the Clinton administration knew about Saddam Hussein’s links to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
Please go here for more…
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/08/interview_with_lt_col_buzz_pat/
Links to the audio file and podcast subscription are also available.
Keep up the great work here Protein
Thanks for the invite, Mark. I’ll take you up on the offer tomorrow. Meanwhile, most of us know Protein as “Jeff.” It’s exotic, I know, but it’s what we call him.
Does anyone have any thoughts on what the consequences of invading/nuking etc., Iran would be? Given its position as a major energy supplier, wouldn`t any hostilities result in all kinds of nasty economic disruptions? WE have to worry abou those kind of things…
Ghost of the Z-Man,
So, Actus is one of your 72 virgins?
1) Economic disruptions
2) Mullahcracy hostile to US interests with nukes
Um. Let me see . . . .
I’ll take the box next to which Carol Merrill is standing.
I think I may be changing my mind. I mean, Iran is a splendid place to live, I’m sure. A real swinging (nooses) gay scene, abortions (post mortem) for unmarried pregnant girls, safe (no women drivers) streets, religious (no choice) harmony, and probably lots of kite flying and puppy dog petting too!
Why, how could anyone imagine such compromising people could misuse nuclear technology is now just crazy talk to me.
Anyone that doesn’t agree with we enlightened ones are just silly bedwetters.
NEOCONS!!!
I love that the first comment at the punditreview link is an octopus alert. Because when I see an Arab woman seeming to speak freely, the first thing I look for is the strings from her jaw to the Zionist masters who move it. Glad it’s not just me.
Re: the mucozionist occupation of JG’s headâ€â€
If you value your cockslap, do not succumb to the lure of Sudafed. Its deadening effect on the penis is rivaled only by fantastic Freudian horrors like your mother’s sneaking up on you mid-coitus and squealing “Tear that shit up, sonny!”â€â€with a smack on your ass for emphasis. Wang failure is real life, not leftist politics, so you can’t just blame the Jews and whistle off to other business.
Well, you can, but a drug-induced flopout is not the ideal occasion for multi-premised self-deprecating humor.
Actually, it is, but only for me.
CLOSED COURSE. DO NOT ATTEMPT.
Chapter 1 (me):
Chapter 2 (actus):
Outcome: The usual snark when examples are requested.
In that vein:
Start here.
That’s just a short essay, but it contains the salient points from almost every thoughtful treatment of the subject. The key passages?
Pakistan:
And India:
As usual with things that go “boom”, actus–You. Don’t. Know.
Time to admit it.
NEXT!
First: Ignore acthole, the Talking Telephone Poleâ„¢. That said, please realize why this is not only delicious, but nutritious too:
acturd does indeed bring nothing to the debate table; this much is assured and as Dan points out, is both as predictable and about as interesting as mud.
The problem with TTP’s isn’t the bullshit, it’s what the bullshit does. By the preemption of airtime, it drops the entire topic down the shitter.
This happens because rational adult humans find a combination of things in TTP’s that offend their sensibilities enough to pause, correct, and then expect reason to ensue.
Silly rational adult humans.
Not happening. Pathological dishonesty is pathological, which is, naturally, why they call it pathological.
In the end it’s abusing everybody’s good graces that smells up the parlor and keeps company away. That’s the problem. It’s not the stupidity, the igorance, the lies, or even the stench.
It’s ruining the only room in the house were important stuff used to get done, even if just theoretically, verbally, etc.
Reform yourselves, rational adult humans and do not invite swine indoors. It smells but more importantly, it displaces regular humanity from happening where it should- nay, must.
I converted. Go ye and do likewise. Ignore the TTPâ„¢.
Second, with that dispensed with—and with it the self-evident proof of again asking you kind folks to wade through all that noise just to get to a rather simple point—didn’t wrechard glean about 1200 comments the other day (this somewhat to Vizsula’s point, above) that killing off your own family ala Kaiser Souza-style tends to focus one entirely and forever on the rage and purpose needed to go after the enemy with a bloody vengence only available to the permanently lost?
I wouldn’t put it past the Islamofascist fundamentalists—proxies, nukes, and all—to do damn near anything and everything to “win” the globe. Consider ye the little dead children-bombs. A precursor?
I won’t name names to avoid pissing off 6Gun any more, but certain commentors should really avoid making asses of themselves about things nuclear and strategic when I am around. I take to that the way Major John takes to snarks about Afghanistan–that is to say…not well.
Thats why I asked where you found out. Your link thinks that India and Pakistan might not have command and control that could survive a war. Thats good enough for you to compare with us and the soviets? Then I guess its good enough for me.
But I’m sorry that you find Irans current strategic position snarky. Perhaps they are. But they are there, we did help put them there, and quite predictably so.
Congrats on getting the ‘TM’ working.
Again, our thick-skulled example of loyal opposition seems to just ignore the other big problems with Iran aquiring nuclear weapons.
First, that Iran openly posessing nuclear weapons changes the actions of other nations in the region. Are the gulf states going to keep providing aid and assistance to the US if it looks like Iran might send a nuclear weapon in their general direction should a war start? Will the Saudis be as cooperative if it looks like weapons might be headed their way sometime in the future?
Also, political situations change. I assume that the Iranian rulers will give control of their nuclear arsenal to people they believe they can trust. What happens in the event of a “people-power” revolution that looks to be on the verge of overthrowing the current regime? Might the regime decide that “well, we’re about to get strung up in the square” and launch?
Would Iran be more willing to support terrorism if it believes it is safe from direct action by the US because of a nuclear arsenal? Since it is obvious that in the event of military action by the US against Iran, the nukes would be the first target, is it likely that Iran might order their forces to ‘launch on warning’ to avoid losing their weapons?
Unless we know that the answer to these questions are all in our favor, the risk of Iran aquiring nuclear weapons is a lot greater than the risk posed by the Soviet Union in the waning days of the cold war.
Is there a government anywhere in the universe we didn’t help put there? More magic, I assume.
B Moe—by “we” anus is referring to the left. Remember, their Saint Jimmy is to blame for the mullahs being in power.
I don’t get it. Right out of the box (heh) I recognize that actass is “just being [his] usual stupider-than-a-box-of-hammers self,” and say so. Yet the usual suspects go ahead and engage him anyway. And eventually they come around to realizing that he’s stupider than a box of hammers.
These threads would take on a lot less of their seemingly normal amount of hijackedness if y’all could just, like, remember the last time y’all cracked yourselves over the head with that box of hammers.
TW: box
I sense a theme here.
I’m just looking for
Just looking for a way around
It disappears this near
You’re the rod I’m water
I’m just looking for the divine hammer
One divine hammer
One divine hammer
I’m just looking for one divine hammer
I’d bang it all day
Oh the carpenter goes bang
Bang bang
I’m just looking for one divine hammer
One divine hammer
One divine hammer
I’m just looking for a faith
Waiting to be followed
It disappears this near
You’re the rod I’m water
I’m just looking for one divine hammer
One divine hammer
One divine hammer
One divine hammer
One divine hammer
One divine hammer
One divine hammer
The only conclusion I can come to after all of the above is that law school must be dead easy.
Oh. And I want nukes now too.
Ah, Dan. Thanks for taking me back to my mid-’90s, Boston-area college roots.
I’m going to have that song stuck in my head all day, and I couldn’t be happier. Yesterday was the Macarena.
Dangers of the Shallows: The Hammerhead Snark
Thanks, Scotch. Great song.
A day after Wilson’s column was published, the White House acknowledged that the infamous “16 words” that appeared in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address about Iraq’s interest in uranium from Africa should not have been cited because the intelligence was unreliable.
speaking of unreliable intelligence (or lack of intelligence), how many more “business hours” before the Rove frog march Jason?
Hmmmm.
@ Jeff.
So.
There are actually people who WANT to live with Mutual Assured Destruction with religious fruitcakes in Iran?
Where’s the fucking train station because I want to get off this damn crazy train!
Leaving the nuclear travails for the moment (as my troll migraine worsens)…
If any of you have had the chance to view the video from Al Jazeera, one of the men she’s arguing with makes her points about Islam only too well. As she’s explaining that she is, in effect, an atheist, the guy with the Harmid Karzai hat jumpps up, waving his arm and starts yelling at her, asking her if she is a “heretic.” Eventually, he says that since she is a heretic, he will no longer bother to try and correct(?) admonish(?) her (or soemthing to that effect.)
There’s our nutshell, which is the size of a watermelon. Engaging religious fanatics, especially of the Islamic ilk, in a debate of ideas is like trying to argue with gale force winds. The religion that considers a Muslim either insane or worthy of death for wanting to stop beliving in Islam is incapable considering other points of view.
And so, France, Germany, Russia, China, State Department, Joe Wilson, moonbats, Prince of Saud, et al, how are we supposed to “negotiate” and “engage” entities that not only don’t care about your ideas, but see all of them as corrupting and heretical?
BTW; as I said before, not in out best national interest for any country to have Nukes that ends their parliamentary sessions with a “Death to America” chant.
Regardless of HOW they got there!
Remember when Sting sang “I hope the Russians love their children too”?
I tried replacing Russians with Iranians, but it doesn’t seem to work.
People. Relax. There is nothing to see here. Move along, move along. This’ll all be over very soon. Particularly you Republican bedwetters need to calm down. It’s all going as planned.
Sincerely,
Satan
P.S. I do have a feeling that I’m in for quite the <i>asswhipping<i>, though.
Items 1 and 2: Here’s the real story, from the lips of Novakula himself:
Item 4: Several points to mention.
a) Go read this and tell me where he’s (generally) wrong. Note thatthe story was written back in 2003
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html
b) Do any of you read the indepth strategy papers produced by the think tanks? I try to (when I can’t sleep). Seriously, I’ve yet to see the “Iran will give bombs to proxies” argument brought up by a reputable agency as a probable outcome. (I’d even include the Heritage Foundation, who’s fallback plan I agree with.) (Remotely possible, sure, but not the slam dunk certainty it’s being presented as here.) Thus, the calculus we (the West)needs to engage in is much more complicated. Specifically, should we base our policy on a remote-but-worst-case scenario, which carries many significant downsides in various subsequent branching paths that are much more likely (oh, and locks us in to the neocons “Let’s fundamentally change the nature of the Middle east, regardless of the fact that it has never worked before and isn’t working in Iraq” policy)? Or should we base our policy on the most-likely-scenario, limiting our exposure and cost and allowing multiple alternate responses at a later time, depending on how events develop? Anyway, see these:
http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/pollack/20060612.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/Iraq/hl942.cfm
Also, TPM recently addressed this very same issue:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009589.php
Another view: Nuclear power plant engineers design to a 1 in a million probability. Earthquakes are more than one in a milion, so they are accounted for. Large meteor strikes are less than one in a million and so are not. The exact ratio isn’t the issue, it’s the chance of the occurence vs a) the cost to prepare for that occurence and b) the opputunities you lose if you choose a particular path.
3) Iranian actual use of a nuke. Why would they, either directly or via proxy? They know we’ll bomb them back to the stone age. Even if you say the mullahs are crazy ( and they are not, it’s the secular political leadership[ Ahmannutjob, that’s good!] that’s crazy, and believe it or not, it’s the mullahs that have a better, bigger picture view), even psychopaths have a sense of self preservation.
4) The internal economics of Iran is a bigger issue than is getting play here. Sanctions against Iran could actually have an effect.
My point is we should not let fear drive our decisions, but rather pragmatism.
9. Holy mother of God.
TW: some heads are harder than others.
Imma throw away my jack and spare tire, I hardly ever get flats, and all that weight has to be hurting my gas mileage.
This is your idea of pragmatism? How exactly to you think sanctions are going to work? Have they ever worked anywhere?
Are we so sure that the apocolypse yearning secular figure (and, by the way, it was a MULLAH who gave Al Qaeda permission to nuke up to 10 million infidels) and his spiritual advisors really have a sense of self-preservation? These guys can hide in secret bunkers and it has already been reported that Ahmannutjob (thank you) has stated in private conversations that he would sacrifice “half of Iran” to acheive Israel’s destruction. Just words? Everyone feeling safer now?
There is a fine line between irrational fear and hard eyed prudence. but, then again, it’s all our fault that Iran will have nuclear capability and that they hate us so.
I can’t wait till actus actually has to make a decision that matters in a case for which he’s responsible – anyone want to bet that the vapid nonentity who so airily dismisses nuclear concerns doesn’t have a major sphincter pucker over deciding whether he should depose the bagboy in that $2500 slip and fall case? Hell, he’ll probably double clutch on whether “that big filing” should be spiral bound or stapled.
Oh there are plenty. But nuclear armed ones?
This won’t make me popular here, but he has a point. When, in world history, has nation A given non-state agent B a nuclear bomb when the command and control of said bomb has not been by Nation A? Ever? I don’t think so because a nuke set off by an the agent would necessarily be attributed to an order coming from the originating nation. No one’s that crazy.
And if they do set if off, then they will be destroyed. The originator will be found out, there is no hiding it. So how does MAD not apply? Is anyone this stupid/crazy actually in control of a nuke?
If they did order it, would it cause an internal rebellion, perhaps by someone not willing to become involved in the greatest, single mass murder event of all time? (They aren’t all religious fundamentalists. And besides, even a fundie might not want to be known to history as “Worse than Hitler”.) This argument actually works against the claims of poor command and control being necessarily a downside for us, as a single actor or small group could prevent the use of a nuke.
Ahmannutjob (thank you) has stated in private conversations that he would sacrifice “half of Iran†to acheive Israel’s destruction. Just words? Everyone feeling safer now?
Source?
Private conversations, but not publicly. That’s called changing your message to suit your audience. So what’s his real position? Who knows?
The mullahs are the ones who call the shots. Mr A. is just the bag boy.
Oh, I’m not pissed off, wishbone, actually I’m sheepish that I spent some valuable minutes completely kicking acturd’s mendacious, pompous ass a dozen or so threads ago to realize, finally, that I wasn’t paying attention to my own rule.
Namely never to engage those without the integrity to be human—you know, reason, accountability, etc. About trolls, I’m on the wagon, but freely admitting that that’s a lifetime condition that needs constant tinkering with.
Moreover, the disease of pop Leftism can be put on the couch and analyzed for fraud all day long. I could write paragraphs on precisely why this is so, as could you and most of the folks here. Not worth it.
Instead we carry on more peripherally WRT that disease of the soul while dealing with other matters at hand. But nearly everybody but the trolls themselves realize, at least subconsciously at any given moment, that said trolls simply do not add up to a reasonable treatment of reality. And they’ll never be reasoned out of something they weren’t reasoned into. actuard even seems to have relapsed. Probably the code reset itself somehow.
So they get slapped when the preferred retaliation would be either to completely ignore them or to pause, divert the thread, and completely kick their lying teeth in…which only hits their reset buttons and starts the program all over again.
Being trolls they prefer the latter because lacking reason, accountability, and responsibility it’s clear that disrupting reason, accountability and responsibility is their primary aim.
Think of it: Utterly shameless trolling about the somewhat more than tacit threat of nuclear war suggested by the planets sociopaths. I mean, really.
Andrew may be ready and willing to trust the safety of the United States of America to the sanity, control, and good common sense of the Iranian mullahcracy.
What have they done to show that they should receive teh benefit of the doubt?
But I’m not.
it’s all our fault that Iran will have nuclear capability and that they hate us so
Let’s not be revisionist here. We did encourage and sell the Shah the nuclear power plants and we did aid in/instigate the overthrow of their democratically elected gov’t and install the Shah. Water under the bridge, it seemed like a good idea at the time, blowback, etc.
Still awaiting details about those sanctions.
Of course @11:48 you basically proved that WWII couldn’t have happened- it wouldn’t have been reasonable after all- so I guess I can be patient in the face of such an intellect.
B Moe,
How about this from the Heritage Foundation article. (Nice tone there B Moe. Love the implication there aren’t any, and that I’m your freaking monkey. It’s too bad you can’t use that towering intellect to click through to a link I already supplied. That being said, I prefer a civil discussion. So, what’s it going to be?)
[Italics mine]
Forge a coalition to impose the strongest possible sanctions on the Iranian regime.
Although it has greatly benefited from the recent spike in world oil and natural gas prices, Iran’s ecoÂÂnomic future is not a promising one. The mullahs have sabotaged economic growth through the expansion of state control of the economy, economÂÂic mismanagement, and corruption. Annual per capita income is only about two-thirds of what it was at the time of the 1979 revolution. The situaÂÂtion is likely to get worse as President Ahmadinejad follows through on his populist promises to increase subsidies and give Iran’s poor a greater share of Iran’s oil wealth.
Iranians are sending large amounts of their capital out of the country due to fears over the potentially disastrous policies of the new government. Shortly after Ahmadinejad gave his October 26 speech threatening Israel, Iran’s stock market plunged to its lowest level in two years. Many Iranian businessmen understand, even if Ahmadinejad does not, that Iran’s economic future depends on access to world markets, foreign investment, and trade.
The U.S. should push for the strongest possible sanctions at the U.N. Security Council. But experiÂÂence has demonstrated that Washington cannot rely on the U.N. to halt the Iranian nuclear proÂÂgram. Russia and China, which have extensive ecoÂÂnomic, military, and energy ties to Iran, may veto or dilute any effective resolution. The U.S. therefore should make contingency plans to work with BritÂÂain, France, Germany, the EU, and Japan to impose sanctions outside the U.N. framework if necessary.
An international ban on the import of Iranian oil is a non-starter. It is unrealistic to expect oil importers to stop importing Iranian oil in a tight, high-priced oil market. Instead, the focus should be on denying Iran loans, foreign investment, and favorable trade deals. Washington should cooperÂÂate with other countries to deny Iran loans from international financial institutions such as the World Bank and to deny Iran loans for a proposed natural gas pipeline to India via Pakistan.
Although Iran is one of the world’s leading oil exporters, it is also an importer of gasoline due to mismanagement and inadequate investment in its refinery infrastructure. An international ban on gasoline exports to Iran would deprive Tehran of approximately 40 percent of its daily gasoline conÂÂsumption. This would significantly drive up the price of Iranian gasoline and underscore to the IraÂÂnian people the shortsighted policies of Iran’s rulÂÂing regime.
In addition to economic sanctions, the U.S. should press its allies and other countries to ban nuclear assistance, arms sales, and the export of dual-use technology to Iran. Symbolic sanctions, such as a travel ban on Iranian officials or prohibiÂÂtion on Iranian participation in international sports events, would drive home to the Iranian people that international opposition to Iran’s nuclear program is widespread and not an artificial issue created by the United States, as their government claims.
Have they ever worked anywhere?
South Arfica. Very different situation, and the sanctions were on again off again, but you said anywhere. (Classic debate strategy tip no. 1: Don’t “ultimatize” unless you are sure of your facts.) Also, we control the nations and waterways of a goodly part of the borders of Iran, so any lax imposition of the sanctions would be our own damn fault.
??? That’s some good crazy there. What in the hell does this have to do with my point that, to-date, no one has yet given a nuke to a proxy they didn’t control 100%? I answered your, now you answer mine, otherwise, we’re done.
Andrew, in between work, some responses:
1) Apologies for the “half of Iran” quote. I should check these things before relying on my failing memory. It was actually the opinion of a former Israeli intelligence officer. Withdrawn.
2) While I would love to engage in a historical debate on who did what 30-50 years ago I’m just more interested in the here and now. I’m not doing revisionist history, I’m more concerned with responding to the current potential crisis. Whether or not Iran as a nation feels justified in enriching Uranium is utterly irrelevant to me. The idea of M.A.D. with Apocalyptic religious fanatics is simply unacceptable at every level.
3) Source? Ahmannutjob has influence and a certain level of popularity. Are we willing to bet the long term safety of the world on his “bagboy” status and on the “more level headed” mullahs. you know, the ones leading those aforementioned “Death to America” chants?
4) Boy, I sure hope so Andrew! Do you think that many radical Islamists give a rat’s ass what “western history” thinks of their actions? What, flying planes into buildings is as far as they would go in their tunnel visioned quest to kill as many westerners (Crusaders) as possible and cause as much economic disruption as can be done? And do you think that it’s a good bet that the poor command and control will give more command advantage to the “reasonable” radicals as opposed to the Apocolyptic, hidden iman, mahdi mullahs/bag boys? I sure feel better. NOT!
BTW: The mullahs disallowed anybody from running in the last election (over 15,000 candidates, I believe) who didn’t meet their religious “test.” Yes, Andrew, the “fundies”are all in charge of the government.
5) OK, let’s beat the 5 time dead horse. The Apocolyptic, “wipe Israel off the face of the earth,”, “Death to America”, financial supporters of terrorism in multiple places aren’t that crazy. Are they? Huh?
Andrew you are spending too much time in historical patterns and origins and not enough time in the present. If you want to talk about historical trends and who had what impact historically on Iran’s current position, write a friggin’ term paper.
6) And how, exactly, are effective sanctions going to be imposed with Russia and China already refusing to play and the always stalwart participation of France and Germany.
Great, you won the debate rules. Here’s a radioactive lollypop! South Africa is a lousy example and you know why, so let’s move past it.
My problem with the Heritage sanctions issue is that neither France or Germany can be counted on to enforce sanctions.
BJ in Texas:
1) TY
2)no questions?
3) He’s called the “Supreme Leader” Source for my assertions is the Brookings Paper (which refers to him as the “primer intes pares”), and this, from the US state department:
http://mehr.org/Khamenei_change.htm
4) Your confabulation of Shiite Islamofascist sand Sunni Islamofascists is interesting, but ill-informed. The (terroristic) movements have very different motives, methods, etc. Most importantly in this case is that Iranian Shiite Islamofascism is located in ….IRAN. Not some diffuse, cellur terrorist organization, but a definable location and nation state.
5)Again: Sunni free agent terrorists: Bug fuck crazy. Shiite, nation state terrorists: Still crazy, but a) locatable and tied to a location and therefore, b)vulnerable.
6) See the Heritage FOundation’s paper call for the US to up diplomatic pressure on both to comply.
Mmmm, gracious. Yeah it’s a bad* example, but it’s per your requirements. So who’s fault is that?
* Bad because, in Iran, we can cut 40% of Iran’s gasoline needs in one day. Think that might have an effect on the economy and public stability?
So is an invasion of Iran to quench said nuclear ambitions (especially to the American electorate. US politicians know this, and are particularly craven. Don’t hold your breath that even the R’s would support a war powers authorization). So what’s the solution?
Andew, you’re starting to get a little of the actus obtuse and debate for debate’s sake. Although, I’ll admit, at least you are trying to quantify a position. Thanks be to Allah!
Why should I care how the CIA helped topple a government in Iran 50 years ago? No Shiite radicals existed then.
I stand by my statement. Ahmannutjob still had a some popularity and influence. Plus, the supreme leader has shown no indication of reigning in Ahmannutjob’s rhetoric.
I do understand the difference between Sunni and Shiite terror organizations and the idea that Iran exists as a country-terror state. While the Sunni’s and Shiites have differing religious views, the full extent of their operational goals are pretty darn close, i.e. close enough. Shiites are more interested in Israel while Sunni’s are more interested in all of Western culture. Both want Islam to rule the world and it ain’t that big a leap from suicide bomber truck full of dynamite to suicide-bomber-truck-full-of-C4-&-radioactive-material. The fact that we have Iran to hit again goes back to the premise previously rejected that enough radicals care about that.
See above answer.
Well, since we’re dealing with recent history, that’s worked well in the past, hasn’t it? Both France and Germany have way too many economic ties with Iran to want to push that button (pardon the nuclear pun.) At least we can agree that the UN is utterly impotent when it comes to enforcing sanctions on Iran. Now backdoor deal$…
Not mine, as I wasn’t the one who asked that question. I just found it self serving and condensending to use an argument that you knew was invalid just to make debate points. Besides, radioactive lollypops are bang bang yummy!
Don’t think that I ever used the word invasion. I’ve said in the past that this is a difficult problem where the potential solutions each have pitfalls. Also, I don’t think that making national security decisions a wholly dependant on the perceived collective opinion of the electorate. Hey, we can cripple their economy by taking out their refining capacity, which, as been pointed out before, is limited.
The whole point of this exercise is that despite your arguments, I’m not convinced that “clearer heads” would prevail in Iran nor that purely economic sanctions are enforcable or would even be effective. Some other action will be called for at some point. Whether that’s next month or 3 years from now is hard to say but feeling good about M.A.D. with mullahs (hey, is that a country/western song?) is not prudent.
PS; not from Texas…
Andrew:
Let me understand this. Your argument is based on the lack of historical precedence?
Do you not understand the word ”new”?
Or perhaps your grasp of world history is far greater in scope and detail than the Iranian leadership. Yeah, that explains it.
So your pragmatic approach is to try something that has only kind of worked one time you can recall in all of history, and then only kind of half-assed. You have a different definition for pragmatic than I am aware of. After the debacle of Iraq I have a hard time taking anyone serious who advocates sanctions as a legitimate means of influencing policy.
You were making the case that it wouldn’t be reasonable to do so, the same was said in the lead-up to WWII, that Hitler wouldn’t do something insane now, would he. It was also a popular refrain before WWI, and I would imagine nearly every “Big One” in history.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, in case you haven’t heard.
Hmmmmmmmm…If Chamberlin had put Hitler in the comfy chair and poked him with the soft pillow….
Guys, Andrew is just going to brandish “Heritage Foundation” paper at you like a cross at a vampire. Just admit that sanctions will work. They have a long and effective hisrtory – they stopped Italy in the 1930s (Ethiopia), they stopped Japan in the 1940s (well, except their response was to “Climb Mount Niitka”) they have stopped the North Koreans stone cold since the 1950s. Jimmy Carter brought Iran to its knees when he froze their assets in 1979…didn’t he? As our loyal opposition continually bangs away at us – LOOK AT CUBA!?! SANCTIONS ONLY HURT THE LITTLE GUY. Or “a million Iraqi babies starve in a given fortnight, thanks to sanctions!”
OK, examples and sarcasm aside…
Who needs China, Russia, France, Germany to make sanctions work…none of them are in the top ten economically, right? Oops.
The real jeff: Yes, “new”. Hmmm, maybe this idea is “new” because no one with a nuke would ever do it. Because, why go to all the trouble of buildinga bomb, to give yourself more power to influence your own destiny (throught the threat of using it), then hand it off to someone else, thus removing your control over your own destiny?
Seriously, terrorists are bad, and possibly seriously crazy. Don’t confuse that with stupid.
Andrew: Do they now? I’d say your assertion is a matter of considerable debate. Does blithely blowing one’s self up count as self-preservation in your book? Interesting.
You sound like you’re trying to convince yourself: they’re not really as bad as all that. My question to you: What if they’re worse? You’re forgetting that the Holocaust is a fabrication, so there’s no need for them to fear being ‘Worse than Hitler’. According to them, Hitler was a stand-up guy.
In fairness, I agree there are many secular, reasonable Iranians, but who is actually in power? Ahmadinejad is a member of the Hojjatieh, a faction whose influence in growing–a development which scares the hell out of moderate Iranians.
It’s an empathetic fallacy to believe someone else will reason exactly as you do yourself. You’re re-making Ahmadinejad in your own image. I, OTOH, believe it’s quite likely Ahmadinejad’s worldview is entirely different from mine. Different and scary.
Honzik: Good quote. ‘Plato’ is Jeff’s middle name.
Mark: It’s subtle but, er, it’s still spam.
Slart: Reality is that it’s information warfare 24/7. Bush has to wake up.
– Andrew. Out of the thousands of words expressed in this thread, debating the seriousness of Irans isolationism, and raw bones words of agression toward Western Democracies, all of it is basically responding to your “stay the course” Jhimmy Carter appeasement views that got us here in the first fucking place.Aand now you want to convince anyone with a working brain that it’s a good idea? How dense can one person be.
– Carter is still, to this day, running around “negotiating” with our sworn enemies. The asshole should be put in a home for his own safety and the well being of the free worlds future. It was his idiotic policies with Iran that fucked up that country beyond belief. Trying to keep that braindead unworkable crapolla going is an insult to common sense, or rational thought.
In a word you’re soft Marxist propagandist, and a dumb “ass”.
BJTexas: No invasion? What, exactly ar eyou advocating then? As I discussed at some length with BRD the other day,(https://proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/20868/#comments) anything short of a full scale invasion and occupation is just kicking it down the road (i.e. will delay but not stop Iran from getting nukes) and has the added bonus of virtually ensuring asymmetric attacks against US interests. This make sus less safe in both the short AND long term? Where as negotiating with the Iranians gives us a measure of control we could not otherwise hope to get.
Some other action will be called for at some point.
What actions? Be specific. And don’t ignore the position of the American electorate, as US politicians certainly won’t when considering the options.
Major John, ahem, Big Bang hunter, same question as to BJTexas.
Please be specific about both a) military actions, and b) geopolitical (including domestic) landscape. I seriously want to know what you all think is the best course of action here (as I think I can shoot down anything other than those recommended in the Heritage Foundation paper).
Major John is right about the Heritage Paper. Those guys are a reasonable, conservative think tank, and this is the best they have to offer for alternatives. The guy at the Heritage Foundation, at the end of his paper, tries to make a case for a more forceful approach. But he sounds as if he knows it won’t sell in the US (not under this Admin anyway, due to the public’s disillusionment with Iraq). So, what have you got?
Oh. I didn’t mean we helped put their government in power. What I did mean is we helped put them in their current strategic position.
Or will they be even more cooperative, because now they’ll need tighter friends?
It’s really not airy dismissal to return to the healthy psychological environmnet that was the cold war. At least I don’t remember it being so airy—but perhaps 9/11 changed everything, including history.
If you had been following along, you’d realize how far off the mark you are. Here are some of my views:
Oh, and I think we should racially profile in airports.
Point being, I support most if not all constitutionally legal (as determined by an informed Congress and Judiciary performing their oversite roles) methods of combatting terrorism. I disagreed with Iraq from the git-go because it was an inefficient use of resources in the GWoT. I disagree with it even more now that it’s fucking with an effective US response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Go read that link I just provided to the other thread. Shoot some holes in my arguments.
(And notice I refrained, for the moment, the urge to insult you.)
Ah, individual martyrs does not equal a nation state. Terrorist attacks by ones or even tens are fundamentally different than the use of a nuclear device. Don’t be obtuse.
Andrew – we have beaten those issues to death. I am tired of dancing… Search function for this blog is in the upper left corner. Check a few posts back and you’ll see all the “what do we possibly do” points you can read. And by some pretty smart folk too (I recommend BRD, The Real Jeff S and Ric Locke as an excellent start).
I take this dead damned serious because if it comes down to military action that is anything other than a mix of SOF, Air, and Naval ONLY – I’ll probably be sent.
My point has always been what, short of Tel Aviv disappearing into a fireball, would have to happen for military action to gain “approval” here in the US [I don’t much care about many other places “opinions” of us as a brake on our activities. Guess I flunk Senator Kerry’s “international test”.]
Much to my sorrow, the only thing I could conclude was a nuclear test and some Persian version of an endzone dance. Of course then the chant would change to “we can’t do anything to them now, they have nukes!”
I am willing to try sanctions, but I cannot take them very seriously when 1/4 of the G-8 has already stated they won’t participate – and they both have veto power in the holy of holies, the UNSC, the only source of moral authority for action that some folks recognize. Another 1/4 of the G-8 would leak like a sieve…half the top world economies would either sit out or be quite dulsatory in their participation. That is not a recipe for success.
Guess I had best keep brushing up on my Dari, as it is a passible version of Farsi.
Me:
Andrew:
“New” as in “new idea”, Andrew. Clearly, a concept that you haven’t grasped. I suspect that you wear a tri-cornered hat.
Your assertion that no one would build something expensive and dangerous, merely to send it away, out of their control, is based on the assumptions that:
1. There is no control over the nuclear weapon once it leaves Iranian territory; and
2. That the Iranians are as rational, clear thinking, selfless, and far seeing as…..well, as yourself, for example.
Neither assumption is valid, since there are examples of Iranian control measures outside of Iran (e.g., Iranian military personnel killed in Lebanon by the IDF), and President Ahmanutjob of Iran comes off as rational only to the likes of Mike Wallace and Hugo Chavez (hardly a recommendation in my view).
But, hey, keep on beating us with your National Heritage Foundation paper. Who am I to deny you your right of free speech.
It’s just that those rights don’t say I have to take you seriously.
And I don’t.
Sure. We can control when and how often the Mullahs say no.
Jesus H. Christ in a sidecar. Somebody buy that guy a history book. Any history book. His posts read like the mission statement for the ACLU.
Of course, our visiting leftists don’t answer my question aside from one minor point. Scenarios hypothesizing Iran launching a suprise nuclear first strike on the US are so tied to what ifs they are impossible to debate. The other effects of a nuclear armed Iran are much easier to predict, and because they tend to argue against a wait and see approach, they get ignored.
What incentive do the Saudis or the Gulf emirs have for buddying up to the US against a nuclear armed Iran? The US will protect them anyways. The rational course is to be neutral.
A nuclear-armed Iran facing internal collapse is not a good thing, especially if you consider the Iranian rulers rational actors. If the Iranian government looks like it is about to collapse from violent internal strife, the danger increases. It might not be rational now from our perspective to launch a nuclear first strike, but if the government is going to fall anyways, there is no harm in taking someone with you. Also, should the government collapse, the troops tasked with holding the weapons are likely to be fanatically loyal to the old regime.
Obtuse? Clearly, someone here is.
That aside, I’d be strongly in favor of taking covert measures to make the Iranian government implode. There’s a strong secular/democratic movement in Iran, especially among the young. If we’re imaginative, we may be able to make it work for us to the relief of moderate Iranians, Israel and the rest of the west. Of course, undermining a government ain’t strictly kosher and I wouldn’t be proud of it but, hey, it beats bombing as an opening move. Plan B represents the ‘high road’ approach.
If Plan B failed, Plan C would call for a strategic, pre-emptive attack on selected Iranian nuclear facilities–you’ll notice I didn’t say ‘nucular’; sorry, gave up knuckle-dragging for the summer. This, too, would give my conscience a rough night or two, but it would definitely have a dampening effect on the mullahs and possibly buy time until cooler heads prevailed.
Plan A–no, I didn’t forget it–which is whatever we’re doing now, with its wilted carrots, suicidal self-deception and guarantee of greater conflagration and loss of innocent life in the future, is an obvious failure. No, it isn’t going to all get better if someone just has a heart-to-heart with Ahmadinejad. Sorry, Neville, no.
Plan D, of course, is what lefties usually think of as the Right’s Plan A: world war. I’d hate it, but I’d support it if A, B and C failed.
As I said – an incurable lightweight.