Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Al-Borz News Service: President Ahmadinejad Expected to Announce Iran’s ‘Nuclear Birth‘“

From MEMRI:

The Iranian news service Al-Borz, which is known to have access to sources in the Iranian government, predicted that on the first anniversary of Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s government, in late August 2006, Ahmadinejad is expected to announce what the news service called Iran’s “nuclear birth.”

In addition, an August 23, 2006 article about Iran’s reply to the incentives proposal, that was posted on the Iranian Foreign Ministry-affiliated website, implied that Iran’s nuclear technology had already reached the point of no return: “… If the West is seeking to impede Iran’s nuclear industry, it should realize that Iran has passed this stage.” [1]

The following are excerpts from the Al-Borz report: [2]

“It is expected that the first anniversary of the forming of the ninth government will be the date of the Ahmadinejad government’s ‘nuclear birth.’

“… Together with [the celebration of] the anniversary of the forming of the ninth cabinet, the president of the country [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] will hold his third press conference… where he will answer questions from journalists from Iran and from abroad.

“In addition to detailing the activities of the government at the end of [its first] year, the head of the government [i.e. Ahmadinejad] will officially present Iran’s positions on: economic and cultural matters, the nuclear dossier, the activities of nuclear research centers, and developments in the region.”

More bluff and bluster?

Who knows.  The fiery skies promised for the 22nd of this month by the Iranian nuttery never materialized—though there are many who believe that the foiled British airline terror plot was set for that date (and certainly would’ve matched that description).  So while there’s reason to believe this is just more brinksmanship, there is also reason to believe that Iran is farther along with its nuclear program than many intelligence services and the IAEA believe.

I posted before on the contention of former Pakistani official that Iran already had nuclear capabilities (and linked reports that AQ Khan supplied Iran with centrifuges), and in December I posted on an assessment by the UN and Israel that Iran was only months away from nuclear readiness; similarly, the breadth of estimates for when Iran will become a nuclear power by many intelligence “experts” is so broad that it hardly inspires confidence in their expertise as a group.

If this is indeed the surprise Iran has promised—and the UN and the “world community” have deferred and delayed and dithered until Iran is a nuclear power—than the entire calculus of the reason could change if that nuclear capability is not immediately neutralized.

Is it possible that the Israelis wouldn’t know just exactly how far along Iran was with its program?  Further, is it possible that Israeli intelligence knew but could do nothing about it?  And finally, would the US let Iran obtain nuclear weapons without at least an attempt to prevent it?

Doubtful.  But one thing we know is that our intelligence agencies can and have been tricked into complacency in the past.

Still, I don’t see Israel taking any chances—which is perhaps why they’ve let leak this surprise of their own, the purchase of two nuclear-capable submarines:

With Iran confidently defying pressure to curb its nuclear programme, Israel has signed a contract with Germany to buy two more submarines capable of firing nuclear missiles, it emerged yesterday.

Israeli security sources said the submarines are needed to counter long-range threats from countries such as Iran, whose president has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.

Israel has been expanding its military in the light of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It already has three Dolphin-class submarines which can fire nuclear missiles, but the newer models can remain submerged far longer.

Notes Ed Morrisey:

One of the key issues with Israeli deterrence against Iranian aggression was its lack of ability to attack Iran directly. The new submarines solve that problem very nicely. The Israelis can easily sail the submarines through the Suez Canal and back up the Straits of Hormuz. From their the Israelis can easily sink Iranian shipping and destroy their ports—or if Iran launches a missile at Tel Aviv, the Israelis can answer with multiple launches at Teheran and other strategic targets in Iran.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has shot off his mouth at every opportunity about the need to wipe Israel off the map. The Israelis took him at his word, even while other diplomats downplayed the significance of Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric. Israel has now shown that they have the means to apply a little Mutually Assured Destruction, a capability that the mullahs have not taken into consideration until now.

Or perhaps they have — which explains why they are scrambling to claim nuclear readiness:  as a way perhaps to deter an Israeli offensive on their nuclear facilities that involves more than simply air power (though something less, of course, than an preemptive nuclear strike).

(h/t JWebb, who is closely following this story; more here)

71 Replies to ““Al-Borz News Service: President Ahmadinejad Expected to Announce Iran’s ‘Nuclear Birth‘“”

  1. Dan Collins says:

    I think they’re scrambling to claim it because they don’t have it.  If they had it, they might demonstrate the fact the way the Indians and Pakistanis did.

  2. When I heard this last night I was actually suprised that there wasn’t some sort of fuss made by the German parliment over this sale.  I would have thought that someone would have shirked at selling Isreal weapons with first-strike capability.

    Then I realised that throughout the course of the day I had eaten an entire bunch of red seedless grapes.

    I’ve had my own version of “nuclear birth” for hours now.

    Pray for me.

  3. nikkolai says:

    If they get nukes, watch out world. Look for fireworks in Tel Aviv and Jerusalum, and be prepared for suitcases to arrive in the U.S.

  4. SPQR says:

    Ed needs to rethink the geography.  Israel is not going to sail nuclear armed submarines through the Suez Canal.  Fortunately there are other, albeit more circuitous, routes and other basing options for Israel.

  5. natesnake says:

    If they had it, they might demonstrate the fact the way the Indians and Pakistanis did.

    I agree with you Dan.  I think Iran would gladly test a device on thier soil to announce arrival.  That doesn’t mean they are not close to arrival though.

    Israel still has some first strike options at this time, but I doubt they will exercise them.

    Nuclear Chess is a difficult game to play.

  6. BJTexs says:

    Great, just great.

    I remember some of the the debates being played out over the blogosphere about whether or not we had the “moral” authority to deny nuclear technology to a country that had such a “jaded” history with us. (re. The Shah and the CIA)

    Even before Abiniwackjob was “elected” my reply to these history slaves was this:”Frankly I would prefer that the country whose parliament ends their sessions by chanting ‘death to America’ not have nuclear capabilites.”

    I’m funny that way.

    Now it gets mind numbingly complicated.

  7. natesnake says:

    Is it possible that Ahmadinejad is more sane than we give him credit?  Could his “wipe Israel off the map” comments be meant to gin up national support and unity of the Iranian people?  Could he just be a politician in the “say anything to get support” sense?

    The economic concessions and benefits that the international community is willing to give them to stop enrichment could be the real reason for all the saber-rattling.

    Personally, I think he is lunatic bent on bringing the apocalypse.  But rule #1 of war is to never underestimate your opponent.

  8. Dan Collins says:

    If they get nukes, watch out world. Look for fireworks in Tel Aviv and Jerusalum, and be prepared for suitcases to arrive in the U.S.

    I have utter confidence in our airlines’ ability to misroute that luggage.

    I agree with you Dan.

    I knew that if I babbled long enough, someday someone would say that.  Thanks, Nate.  I can retire from commenting now.

  9. actus says:

    Is it possible that Ahmadinejad is more sane than we give him credit?  Could his “wipe Israel off the map” comments be meant to gin up national support and unity of the Iranian people?

    Maybe he didn’t really mean “bring ‘em on”? It could be. It certainly could.

  10. BJTexs says:

    Is it possible that Ahmadinejad is more sane than we give him credit?  Could his “wipe Israel off the map” comments be meant to gin up national support and unity of the Iranian people?  Could he just be a politician in the “say anything to get support” sense?

    Um. no, I don’t think so.

    Everything that we know about this guy (apart from Mike “wow, he’s a bright guy” Wallace) indicates a religious fanatic who really believes the Armageddon prophesy and is more than willing to help usher in the return of the mahdi, preceeded by the “hidden iman.” He’s preaching to the choir, that being the most fundamental/radical elements in his country who currently run the place.

    Keep in mind that there is at least some third party evidence that a significant number of Iranians are very, very nervous about his pronouncements. I think that it would be a bas bet to assume that he’s just posturing.

  11. John Lynch says:

    Dan,

    Don’t retire (as a commenter) just yet.  We have to call in a construction crew, or a news photog, whichever is cheaper; and move the goal posts on you.

    Now that you have one affirmation, we need to have you get two.  Can you imagine? Two people standing up and saying “We agree with Dan!” It would be like they are special friends or something.  Then, maybe we could get three.  Three!  Three people standing up and saying “We affirm Dan!” And then .. maybe a movement . . Imagine.

    tw: past

    Obviously, I misspent some part of my [].

  12. natesnake says:

    I knew that if I babbled long enough, someday someone would say that.  Thanks, Nate.  I can retire from commenting now.

    Dan, you shouldn’t hang up your jersey just yet.  Getting an “atta-boy” from me is like getting a pat on the back by the team’s retarded water-boy.

    Maybe he didn’t really mean “bring ‘em on”? It could be. It certainly could.

    Jaysus, somebody please shoot me.  Actroid is supporting one of my concepts.

    T/W Stupid is as stupid does.

  13. BJTexs says:

    Hey. lookee! It’s cheap shot actus commenting from “Trolls R’ Us” with another pithy comment that has nothing to so with the topic at hand and everything to do with taking a shot at the Prez’. I don’t know about anyone else but I feel that the level of debate has been, uh, um,…. made nonexistant.

    Good work, troll! Now sit!

  14. BJTexs says:

    Jaysus, somebody please shoot me.  Actroid is supporting one of my concepts.

    Fear not natesnake, remember the blind squirrel, stopped clock, etc.

    BTW Bush has admitted that that particular statement was a bad idea. I admit that I cheered it when I should have been wincing. My bad.

    Fishing metaphor: Prog trolls are the chum of the blogosphere. FEEDING FRENZY!!!

  15. natesnake says:

    I think that it would be a bas bet to assume that he’s just posturing.

    I heavily lean towards the lunatic angle.  Regardless of the lunatic verses politician identity, what he is doing is extremely dangerous.  At a minimum, he is breeding more hatred towards the Israelis and creating droves of potential Jihadists.

    He needs to be removed from power.

  16. nikkolai says:

    Iran’s nuclear birth

    Should the U.S. or Israel conduct the abortion?

    Either way, that baby’s gotta go.

  17. 6Gun says:

    Folks, please, allow me to recommend ignoring the TTP this fine morning. 

    Thanks for the opportunity.  Just trying out my new anti-troll suit.  I mean, what can you say about/to/for/against a naive, humorless, imported S. American freeloading socialist eunuch lacking an irony gene and daily exercising a willfully dishonest streak as long as a feminazi’s litany? 

    Remember, anti-reality bites. 

    Now, how do you superscript stuff anyway?

  18. BJTexs says:

    1)

    heavily lean towards the lunatic angle.  Regardless of the lunatic verses politician identity, what he is doing is extremely dangerous.  At a minimum, he is breeding more hatred towards the Israelis and creating droves of potential Jihadists.

    Agreed, natesnake.

    2)

    Should the U.S. or Israel conduct the abortion?

    The answer is: whoever can.

  19. Dan Collins says:

    Three people standing up and saying “We affirm Dan!” And then .. maybe a movement . . Imagine

    John, that’s just plain scary (d’oh, stupid movie!).  I know it takes a lot to get banned around here, but . . . that’s just crazy talk.

  20. natesnake says:

    Folks, please, allow me to recommend ignoring the TTP this fine morning.

    Sorry 6Gun.  Force of habit.  TTP agreed with a concept and I felt ill.  I pulled the trigger and feel much better now.

  21. BJTexs says:

    “Maybe a movement…”

    I’d like to start a movement called Troll Flushing.

    Anybody want to work on flyers?

  22. N. O'Brain says:

    Maybe he didn’t really mean “bring ‘em on”? It could be. It certainly could.

    Posted by actus | permalink

    on 08/24 at 10:00 AM

    Are you insane?

  23. Dan Collins says:

    Trolls spin in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere.  It’s kind of a sucky hemisphere, outside of Australia, I know, but they do.

    TW: history, don’t know much about it

  24. BJTexs says:

    Are you insane?

    Following the rules: knowing the anwer to the question before you ask it.

    Hey, are trolls called something different in the Pacific? cycdwarves? Leprakooks? Tsunafaeries? Miteclones?

    Just askin’…

  25. McGehee says:

    Should the U.S. or Israel conduct the abortion?

    Abortion? Not necessary.

    Send in a mohel with Parkinson’s.

  26. ats says:

    A MEMRI translation? Glad Mossad is spendning our money wisely.

    See:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

  27. actus says:

    I would have thought that someone would have shirked at selling Isreal weapons with first-strike capability.

    Perhaps the subs aren’t really first strike. Rather, they’re second strike. If anyone does wipe Israel off hte map, they’ll then get walloped by the whatever punch the subs carry.

  28. Jeff Goldstein says:

    ats —

    Why do you so fear appending your name to your little anti-semitic droppings?

    Is it shame? Or do you fear, say, Rob Reiner showing up at your door to bitch slap you with a loaf of challah?

  29. Dan Collins says:

    The Guardian and Indy are the places I go when I want the big funny.  British humor is just so sophisticated.

  30. Dan Collins says:

    Perhaps the subs aren’t really first strike. Rather, they’re second strike. If anyone does wipe Israel off hte map, they’ll then get walloped by the whatever punch the subs carry

    Geez, you are a brilliant tactician.  Operation Samson.

  31. BJTexs says:

    A MEMRI translation? Glad Mossad is spendning our money wisely.

    Oh, no! Not an attempt by people associated with Israel to spin some news. Oh, the humanity!

    Hey, maybe the Hezzies ought to try something like…

    Oh! Oh,yea! Photoshop rules!!!

    ats, get a life and a clue!

  32. Pablo says:

    A MEMRI translation? Glad Mossad is spendning our money wisely.

    So, the NYT must be a CIA front?

    Why is it that every tool who links that Whitaker piece likes to act as if it doesn’t say this:

    Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri’s translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output.

    Well, sure there’s reason to be concerned. Yigal Carmon is a JOOOOOOOO!!!!!

  33. actus says:

    Geez, you are a brilliant tactician.  Operation Samson.

    MAD-type deterrence has as a pre-requisite the fact that you can strike back, or that no-one can win by a first strike. With a place as small as Israel, thats got to be a concern.

  34. Eric J says:

    First of all, I’m convinced any Iranian nuclear “test” will come in Tel Aviv. There’ll be less international condemnation for attacking the Jewish State than for conducting an above-ground nuclear test.

    Second, I’ve been playing with an idea where Iran uses their first nuke in Baghdad – wipe out the Green Zone and cripple both the Iraqi government and U.S. forces in the region. Iran sends troops across the border to “impose control” on the chaos, and a good part of the remaining US forces are tied up with humanitarian concerns until reinforcements can arrive.

    So if Iran starts massing troops (although I think they’ve already got plenty there) and the Mahdi army suddenly goes on vacation in the countryside, it’s time to get real nervous.

  35. Defense Guy says:

    MAD-type deterrence has as a pre-requisite the fact that you can strike back, or that no-one can win by a first strike.

    You assume that Iran would care about things such as this, while history, and the words coming from their leaders don’t indicate they do.

  36. Dan Collins says:

    With a place as small as Israel, thats got to be a concern.

    Yeah, like the Palestinians give a rat’s ass about thermonuclear fallout.

  37. Perhaps the subs aren’t really first strike. Rather, they’re second strike. If anyone does wipe Israel off hte map, they’ll then get walloped by the whatever punch the subs carry.

    A sub gives you first strike capability as well as the old deterrent effect of MAD.  I’m positive that Isreal wouldn’t shoot a nuclear tipped missle into Iran from a sub in the Persian Gulf, but the Germans?  I’m just saying I’m suprised Stern didn’t drop this on the cover two weeks ago.

  38. RDub says:

    A MEMRI translation? Glad Mossad is spendning our money wisely.

    Huh.  It’s interesting, people who make this claim are invariably quiet when it’s pointed out that MEMRI is one of the few sources for those rare Muslims who are willing to speak out against Waahabism, Iran, Al-Jazeera, etc.  The Arab News is another source, but much more infrequently (and hardly ever critical of the Saudis).

    <a href=”http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD126206″ target=”_blank”>

    But hey, don’t let that bother you.

  39. actus says:

    You assume that Iran would care about things such as this, while history, and the words coming from their leaders don’t indicate they do.

    I said it was a pre-requisite. A pre-requisite is a necessary but not sufficient condition to something.

    As for history, i’ve seen iranian leaders send others to their suicide deaths. I’ve never seen one commit suicide themselves. I’ve seen Iranian-allied people, such as Sadr, back down when faced with destruction. I’ve also seen Iran not do acts which were certain to be met with retaliation, such as when we re-flagged kuwaiti tankers on the straits of hormuz. The Iranians didn’t strike at them. So the obvious lesson from history is that they dont care about things like this. Of course.

    Lastly, one should prepare for the fact that Iran can’t be deterred. But one would also prepare for the fact that they might. The last thing you want is to NOT have the ability to deter, because you’ve been blinded by your ideological view of your opponent as undeterrable. Then they’ve already won.

  40. actus says:

    Second, I’ve been playing with an idea where Iran uses their first nuke in Baghdad – wipe out the Green Zone and cripple both the Iraqi government and U.S. forces in the region. Iran sends troops across the border to “impose control” on the chaos, and a good part of the remaining US forces are tied up with humanitarian concerns until reinforcements can arrive.

    My guess is Iran is quite happy with what the Bush administration has done in Iraq, and they certainly wouldn’t want to mess that up.

  41. Rusty. says:

    MAD-type deterrence has as a pre-requisite the fact that you can strike back, or that no-one can win by a first strike. With a place as small as Israel, thats got to be a concern.

    Which only works when both sides are afraid of causing massive amounts of civilian casualties. One side of the current equation has absolutely no qualms about incurring massive civilian casualties on their side. Which in turn places the responsibility of seeing that Iran does not get to the actual bomb part of uranium purification in the hands of the areas grown ups.Who are right now squeezing Iran in the hopes of fomenting more internal strife.

    Much of last sixty years have been an exersize in keeping that particular plague bottled up and secure. The last thing this world needs is for ANYBODY to start lobbing nuclear bombs around like beernuts on a saturday night.If and when Israel or the United States decides to take out Irans nuclear capability it won’t be with more nukes. We have much more precise methods.There some absolutes. Death happens to be one of them.

  42. Pablo says:

    My guess is Iran is quite happy with what the Bush administration has done in Iraq, and they certainly wouldn’t want to mess that up.

    Ya, they adore being nearly surrounded by Americans, especially the approximately 150K in Iraq and all the hardware they brought with them. Every mullah dreams of having lots of heavily armed American neighbors.

  43. Defense Guy says:

    As for history, i’ve seen iranian leaders send others to their suicide deaths. I’ve never seen one commit suicide themselves. I’ve seen Iranian-allied people, such as Sadr, back down when faced with destruction. I’ve also seen Iran not do acts which were certain to be met with retaliation, such as when we re-flagged kuwaiti tankers on the straits of hormuz. The Iranians didn’t strike at them. So the obvious lesson from history is that they dont care about things like this. Of course.

    Quite an inclusive list of Iranian history actus.  You should be proud of your one-sidedness, it really points to your devotion to your own ego.

  44. My guess is Iran is quite happy with what the Bush administration has done in Iraq, and they certainly wouldn’t want to mess that up.

    If that’s your guess, and not just another bit of snark dripping from your mouth like feces, then you truly are dumber than a telephone pole. If the Iranians were happy with the removal of Saddam, why are they pumping guns, cash, and nutjobs into Iraq?

  45. nnivea says:

    </blockquote>My guess is Iran is quite happy with what the Bush administration has done in Iraq, and they certainly wouldn’t want to mess that up.

    If the US weren’t in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’d imagine that Israel’s recent dust-up with hezbollah might have taken an entirely different (and ominous) turn for the worse.

  46. TODD says:

    “My guess is Iran is quite happy with what the Bush administration has done in Iraq, and they certainly wouldn’t want to mess that up.”

    Sure Actless,

    Wouldn’t want to do that! Now that we have controlled airstrips incountry whereas to send our B-2’s from without the hassle of inflight refueling. Boy, you sure are on a roll today.

  47. Bozoer Rebbe says:

    Iran can be crippled by attacking it’s nine gasoline refineries.

    They have only nine refineries, they are operating way over capacities, thereby degrading. Iran must import gasoline and diesel fuel.

    Nine cruise missiles and a naval blockade might do the trick.

  48. SPQR says:

    Actus is now opining on nuclear strategy and deterrence … Herman Kahn rolls in grave.

  49. Nine cruise missiles and a naval blockade might do the trick.

    Use eightteen, just to be sure.

    Or, heck, I understand some of the new JDAM munitions have a stand-off range that lets you drop them from international waters and still hit coastal targets.

  50. actus says:

    Every mullah dreams of having lots of heavily armed American neighbors.

    Being blown up. Unable to shoot back. And unable to leave. Yup.

    If the Iranians were happy with the removal of Saddam, why are they pumping guns, cash, and nutjobs into Iraq?

    Thats what they’re happy about. Saddam is gone, and now their influence in Iraq is greater, not smaller. Saddams army has been replaced by the american one. Some people will tell you that this army is threatening Iran. But these are the same people that say that our army can’t leave Iraq.

    Wouldn’t want to do that! Now that we have controlled airstrips incountry whereas to send our B-2’s from without the hassle of inflight refueling.

    Ya. We traded airbases in safe Saudi arabia for ones in a war zone in Iraq. Whoop-de-do. What fucking brilliance.

    But are we really basing B-2’s in Iraq?

  51. Pablo says:

    We traded airbases in safe Saudi arabia for ones in a war zone in Iraq.

    Ya, totally safe Saudi Arabia. Where everyone loved having us.

    What a fucking retard.

    tw: really

  52. Major John says:

    Guys stop engaging the Telephone Pole.  Asking it to remember all the way back to OBL’s declaration of war due to infidel forces being in the Kingdom is unfair!

  53. cathyf says:

    on the first anniversary of Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s government, in late August 2006, Ahmadinejad is expected to announce what the news service called Iran’s “nuclear birth.”

    I’ve got this fantasy… Ahmadinejad on live TV, makes his announcement, and 30 seconds later the cruise missile arrives on his head…

    Hey, I know that the timing on a cruise-missile attack isn’t that exact (i.e. it would have to be launched before the press conference started) but heck, a girl can dream, can’t she?

  54. Dan Collins says:

    Geez, Actus.  Isn’t there an OJ thread at Patterico’s?

  55. actus says:

    Ya, totally safe Saudi Arabia. Where everyone loved having us.

    Looks safer than Iraq. But perhaps we shouldn’t put bases where bin ladin says we shouldn’t. You know, cuz appeasement and all.

    Geez, Actus.  Isn’t there an OJ thread at Patterico’s?

    I really don’t understand why he’s doing that.

  56. Additional Blond Agent says:

    I really don’t understand why he’s doing that.

    Sun rises in morning, news at six.

    Retard.

  57. BJTexs says:

    </blockquote>Send in a mohel with Parkinson’s. <blockquote>

    McGehee:

    How pathetic am I? I had to look up “mohel” at Yahoo. Then I laughed my ass off.

    Ivy League educations ain’t all that big a thang!

  58. mojo says:

    Ahmadinejad Expected to Announce Iran’s ‘Nuclear Birth‘

    Mazeltov!

  59. McGehee says:

    I had to look up “mohel” at Yahoo. Then I laughed my ass off.

    There, you see? I’m funny and educational!

    I should have a show in Nickelodeon.

  60. Nuclear birth?  Nuclear death would be preferable.

  61. TODD says:

    No Actus,

    Your existence is fucking brilliance. The fact that you proceed with your asskicking logic makes our day…..

  62. Guys stop engaging the Telephone Pole.

    Engaging?

    I thought we were ridiculing it.

  63. 6Gun says:

    People, people, people, these attempts by the TTPâ„¢* to “engage” humans are nothing than fuzzy illogic warming up a few spontaneous salt crystal junctions and a crude serial interface when exposed to a few microamps over in the back of the lab.  Ignore this bit of dysfunctional code or you’ll “teach” it more routines in its rote quest for functioning human emulation.

    See, “fucking”, “cuz”, and “ya” are just today’s maladjusted quips aimed at sounding like people.  Tomorrow it’ll be “asshat”, “cept”, and “yep” and so on and so on.  In time we’ll have to deal with entire paragraphs of gibberish sounding like Dean did blotter and piped a hacked iPod and a IBM Selectric into a dangling Starbuck’s wifi node.

    Props to Jeff (or who configured this piece of moistware) but it’s still a bad experiment and should flip out of it’s little dish onto the tile and just cease to exist.

    *HT, Pablo.

  64. actus says:

    Quite an inclusive list of Iranian history actus.  You should be proud of your one-sidedness, it really points to your devotion to your own ego.

    I’ve seen deterrence, so its not the case that they’re undeterrable period. But Israel or the US could certainly make it so by acting as if they can’t be deterred. But that sounds like a stupid idea.

  65. McGehee says:

    I second 6Gun. Jeff, the Turing Word Generator is top notch. This trollbot thingie, not so much.

  66. B Moe says:

    I’ve seen deterrence, so its not the case that they’re undeterrable period. But Israel or the US could certainly make it so by acting as if they can’t be deterred. But that sounds like a stupid idea.

    Actually, that sounds like gibberish.

  67. actus says:

    Actually, that sounds like gibberish.

    Are you really having a hard time understanding that? I ‘m sorry. Let me try again: If we don’t even try to deter Iran, then certainly Iran won’t be deterred. But that sounds like a dumb way to go.

  68. Rusty. says:

    If we don’t even try to deter Iran, then certainly Iran won’t be deterred. But that sounds like a dumb way to go.

    I’m glad to see you’re onboard with the war in Iraq.

    Other than having them surrounded, destabilizing their secular society, and drawing them to the negotiating table, what do you suggest? Short of the UN I mean.

  69. actus says:

    I’m glad to see you’re onboard with the war in Iraq.

    What?

    Other than having them surrounded, destabilizing their secular society, and drawing them to the negotiating table, what do you suggest? Short of the UN I mean.

    Carrots and sticks, I suppose. But thats not really the deterrence I’m talking about.

  70. McGehee says:

    Posted by actus | permalink

    on 08/25 at 08:57 AM

    Can we please not have any more guessing games, where certain of our regulars keep trying to pin it down on whatever the @#$! it is talking about.

    Even it doesn’t know, okay?

  71. To Here in My again

Comments are closed.