Red Meat for Supporters of Israel.
Sarah on the Iranian threat:
Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.
As Sandra Bernhard would say: shiksa.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:45 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.
Here's a Tip to Iran's "Modesty Police"
Perhaps you need to be more modest yourselves. Just a thought.
A reminder: Many women continue to be arrested in Iran for violations of the strict dress code, and it doesn't always turn into a riot, as it did this time. The difference is that when it does, we can find out about it, due to cell phone videos and blogging.
The full story is here at PJ Media, including translations of what the crowd is chanting on the video.
1
Just shows you that you have to read the instruction manual. Which way do I hold this thing? Not sideways, dude! They already made that movie.
Other than that, good for them! About time! Maybe they are starting to sense that George Bush can't do it for them.
Posted by: Darrell at February 26, 2008 01:39 PM (lFZPC)
Posted by: Darrell at February 26, 2008 03:05 PM (lFZPC)
4
You are only exposing your racist values that you grew up with.
Posted by: Azmat Hussain at February 26, 2008 08:18 PM (mdszq)
5
Since you and I and the Iranians are the same race, how can this be, Comrade Azmat?
Posted by: Darrell at February 26, 2008 08:32 PM (lFZPC)
6
Darrell, seriously do you belong to the human race??
In that case start acting like one.
Posted by: azmat Hussain at February 28, 2008 10:01 AM (Q6efx)
7
"Humanity" is contingent on agreeing with Azmat. . . Who knew? And btw, Azmat, those ad hominem attacks always prove your humanity. As does your circular logic. For one who claims to believe that we are of one race--human--you sure do throw that "racist" charge around at the drop of a hat. But that's par for the course for one who seeks to divide, isn't it?
The point stands.
Posted by: Darrell at February 29, 2008 10:20 AM (QhK+h)
8
hey Darrell sorry if I hurt you deeply about that humanity brab. I see you are a little sensitive in that area.
And after watching the video several times with my Iranian friends I can see clearly what your point is. The video is a clear example that the situation in Iran is clearly untenable. Very Clear audio and video, and also the words used were so clear and to the point.
As far as your racist upbringing is concerned
i don't think that there is any doubt about it, you are proving it every time you write something.
And no I don't seek to divide, I take your racist upbringing into account and forgive you each time, knowing fully well that you are having a difficult life as it is. And it was not your fault that you lived in a place and time where you had to believe in whatever racist values that were imparted to you.
So no big deal!
Posted by: comrade Azmat at March 01, 2008 11:00 AM (Q6efx)
Podhoretz on the NIE Flip-Flop Regarding Iran's Nukes
Maybe the folks at the NIE aren't just on crack, as one might suppose from the wild fluctuations in their assessments:
a full two years after Iran supposedly called a halt to its nuclear program, the intelligence community was still as sure as it ever is about anything that Iran was determined to build a nuclear arsenal. Why then should we believe it when it now tells us, and with the same “high confidence,” that Iran had already called a halt to its nuclear-weapons program in 2003? Similarly with the intelligence community’s reversal on the effectiveness of international pressure. In 2005, the NIE was highly confident that international pressure had not lessened Iran’s determination to develop nuclear weapons, and yet now, in 2007, the intelligence community is just as confident that international pressure had already done the trick by 2003.
It is worth remembering that in 2002, one of the conclusions offered by the NIE, also with “high confidence,” was that “Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.” And another conclusion, offered with high confidence too, was that “Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.”
I must confess to suspecting that the intelligence community, having been excoriated for supporting the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is now bending over backward to counter what has up to now been a similarly universal view (including as is evident from the 2005 NIE, within the intelligence community itself) that Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons. I also suspect that, having been excoriated as well for minimizing the time it would take Saddam to add nuclear weapons to his arsenal, the intelligence community is now bending over backward to maximize the time it will take Iran to reach the same goal.
But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. As the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding. How better, then, to stop Bush in his tracks than by telling him and the world that such pressures have already been effective and that keeping them up could well bring about “a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program”—especially if the negotiations and sanctions were combined with a goodly dose of appeasement or, in the NIE’s own euphemistic formulation, “with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.”
1
There is a big problem with Podhoretz's analysis.
By their own testimony, the newspaper asked Bush if it would be all right to print this story -- and he said "sure, go ahead." I'll grant that George is not Vannevar, but he isn't nearly stupid enough to allow something damaging to get out that easily unless there were some other advantage accruing. It might be worth while to try to imagine what that might be.
Regards,
Ric
Posted by: Ric Locke at December 04, 2007 12:33 PM (DTj4I)
2
But Bush granting his permission doesn't negate the possibility that there was an agenda behind the original analysis that make it so starkly different from what they've said in the past.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 04, 2007 12:45 PM (aywD+)
3
Bush saying "Don't publish this, please" makes it a "Special Report" doesn't it? I am so confused!
Posted by: Darrell at December 04, 2007 03:41 PM (Lqv3G)
4
Glad the CIA and the intelligence community hasn't wound up with excrement on their faces, having been wrong just about every time since WWII. Glad Bush can be wrong no matter which of the two possible, mutually exclusive, eventualities is reached. Glad the Left is in charge of history. Or is that hystery? I always forget.
Posted by: Darrell at December 04, 2007 08:33 PM (umZdf)
Goldstein on the Iranian/British Standoff.
Did we "reward piracy"? Well, probably. This time.
And the fact that the EU and the UN are useless is hardly news.
It's just that I choose to believe that the grownups (the U.S., the Brits, the Australians) have long-term intentions beyond letting legitimate Iranian hostages go.
As I've said before, capturing the British sailors was an act of war. It's just that the war itself may be time-released.
1
The problem with a time-released response is that, not unlike WWII, it allows the enemy ample time to aggregate weapons and political power to blunt or depreciate the actual attack.
Had we intervened and stopped Hitler as he was moving his army into the Rhineland it's at least possible that the war might have been averted. The difference can be measured in about 40 million lives.
It is estimated that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within two years and should the Democrats win the White House we can be assured they will engage them and the other barbaric regime--Syria--in a protracted and wholly impotent series of "negotiations."
For an apt retort to the left, please see my post "Speaker Pelosi's 'Peace in Our Time,' at:
www.clearcommentary.com
Philip Mella
ClearCommentary.com
Posted by: Philip Mella at April 07, 2007 11:50 AM (EEIw3)
2
Now if the Iranians had appologized and said that it was thier mistake, for some of these right wing idiots that would be all the more reason to go to war!
My question is what were the Brits doing so close to the border without ample protection. Its like when you are about to have sex and say that you have no intention of penetration, just wanna hang close to that area, without any accidental penetration and no condom
Posted by: azmat hussain at April 09, 2007 07:17 PM (mdszq)
3
No. Apologies are not an act of war. Kidnappings are.
Hm. How would a guy feel if he got naked with a girl, didn't penetrate her, didn't even ejaculate, and then was informed later on that he'd gotten VD and she was pregnant? It seems to me that he might be a bit put-out by such a thing.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 09, 2007 07:37 PM (6C0F9)
4
That is the point risky behavior can get you into trouble. Stay far away, don't get naked and you are OK!
Posted by: Azmat Hussain at April 10, 2007 08:08 PM (mdszq)
5
So the Western world should just tiptoe around the Iranians, so as not to tempt fate?
No, Az: they should tiptoe around us. We've been tiptoeing since the 1970s, and all it's gotten us has been more trouble.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 10, 2007 08:21 PM (uSWaZ)
One can only suspect what's going on beneath the surface, here: either the Brits/Americans quietly issued an ultimatum, or the entire situation was manufactured within Iran and reflects its own turmoil.
1
The Brits apologized and said they won't do it again
Posted by: John Ryan at April 05, 2007 12:35 PM (TcoRJ)
2
They sure as blue blazes wouldn't have pulled this stunt with Truman in the Oval Office.
Of course, if Truman ran for president today, he'd have to run as a Republican (and he'd win the nomination easily), because the Democrats have moved light-years away from him.
Posted by: John at April 05, 2007 03:29 PM (us1EO)
3
Yeah, but we don't know what went on behind the scenes.
Publicly, everyone saved face. Privately, I suspect it was a bit different.
And who knows whether a different person as President here--or as P.M. in Britain--would have made a big difference. We cannot assume that the Iranians are going to act in their own rational self-interest. That's why the WoT is tougher than the Cold War.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 05, 2007 04:47 PM (6C0F9)
4
"Publicly, everyone saved face. Privately, I suspect it was a bit different."
Reminds me of this quote, said by someone whose name I forget at the moment.
"While you're saving your face, you're losing your ass."
Posted by: John at April 06, 2007 04:26 PM (WOJb1)
Undermining Iran's Infrastructure
Captain Ed has a nice summary about some of the ways the U.S. has been quietly reducing the amount of capital available in Iran—both for improving oil-industry infrastructure and for funding terrorism.
It helps to answer the question, "what are we doing about these guys?"
A fair amount, it turns out.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:25 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.
More on the Captured Britons
Via James Joyner, who remarks
It would be harder for Iran to be much more isolated in the international community, as even the Russians have backed away from them in recent months. Still, sending such a strong signal that they are not responsible, rational actors makes no sense to me. Their position should be to try to force the world to take them seriously as a regional power, not to reinforce their status as a rogue state.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:07 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.
Understanding Iran
Over at Protein Wisdom, The Sanity Inspector slams Lisa Margonelli's recent statements on NPR, comparing her perceptions of Iran to those harbored about Soviet Russia by its apologists in the early years of the Cold War.
The analogy that crosses my mind is the obvious one, though: Nazi Germany. Too few people read Mein Kampf, and among those who did, too few regarded it as possible that Hitler actually meant what he said.
I'm all for understanding the complex motives behind human interactions, but here is also something to be said for taking the leaders of nations at their word when they speak of their overarching geopolitical goals.
And I remain skeptical of those who assure me that they know what ordinary Iranians think and feel: I heard too much of that with Iraq, from people who had vested interests in believing that the Iraqi-on-the-street would be offended—offended!—if we dared to depose Saddam.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:24 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.
Over at Tammy B's
. . . Maynard discusses the possibility of a nuclear exchange in the Middle East. It isn't a cheerful prospect.
Of course, I have no interest in watching Israel lie down and die, or the Western World being subject to nuclear blackmail (beyond what Kim Jong Il has already attempted).
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:15 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Bomb, bomb, bomb
bomb, bomb Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb
bomb, bomb Iran.
Bomb Iran
That is our plan
Bomb Iran
We have it rockin' and a rollin'
Rockin' and a reelin'
Bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
Went to Iran
Looking for some gas
Met the Ayatollah
And I knew I'd kick some ass
I had 600 people singing along with me in a bar in 1979: My shot as a rock star. To the best of my knowledge, I was the first. Can't prove it though. And the Beach Boys might have a quarrel with the use of their music. So maybe someone else should get the credit.
Posted by: Darrell at January 07, 2007 08:46 PM (kW/U8)
2
I think it comes under "fair use."
And I remember singing that same song in 1979 in Santa Monica with other high schoolers, so it might be that it was simply an idea whose time had come . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 07, 2007 09:41 PM (0CbUL)
3
Oh sure! Next you will be telling me that I wasn't the first to use "The Audacity of Hype" in reference to Barack Obama. I choose to remember history differently than you. Screw those who had my brilliant ideas before me! Or found a way to secure the rights.
Posted by: Darrell at January 08, 2007 09:43 AM (jB/C2)
It's a Beautiful Day.
The high winds have subsided, and the sky is blue, with fluffy white clouds. I'm thinking this would be a great time to start drilling ANWR.
1
ENVIRONMENTALIST: But even if we do open up ANWR for drilling, it won't affect oil supplies for fives years.
NORMAL GUY: So if we hadn't listened to you five years ago when this topic came up for discussion, we'd have the oil now. Thanks a lot, doofus.
Posted by: John at December 29, 2006 01:01 PM (UHFyY)
Rum, Sodomy and the Lash in the Land of the Mullahs
Via Insty, Austin Bay discusses the possibility that Iran already has nuclear weapons, and concludes that it's damned unlikely; he points out that there are other reasons the U.S. appears so oddly passive right now.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:37 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.
I've Got It!
Can't someone just see to it that Ahmadinejad gets laid sometime between now and the 11th of next month? I suspect that would help enormously.
1
I'll see if "Screaming Mary," the "face" of the 1979 Iranian Revolution can pencil him in. After all, he is one of her hostage-taking buddies. One for old times.
Maybe McCain can visit her too. She was the UN's 2006 "Champion of the Earth,"for her environmental work in Iran. They have a program in place for "global warming", too--you know. They're setting the bar a little higher than 0.5-0.7 degrees C in 150 years...10,000 degrees C in under one second. Give or take.
Posted by: Darrell at August 24, 2006 08:59 AM (a/Tqu)
2
We could pitch in for a plane ticket to Tehran. We should get permission from the hubby first.
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at August 24, 2006 10:44 AM (RiZPJ)
3
Whose hubby, Sean?
[But I get it. And I'll be lyin' in the long grass, waitin' for you someday when you least expect it--watch out!]
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 24, 2006 12:00 PM (LEEsJ)
4
I'll be like John Kerry and tell you to "Bring. It. On."
And that was after I voted for it before I voted against it. Or am I mixing my metaphors?
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at August 24, 2006 10:13 PM (RiZPJ)
5
That's it! I'll hit you over the head with a very large flip-flop!
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 24, 2006 10:46 PM (LEEsJ)
6
...all of which begs the question: "Whom shall be sacrificed?"
Is he to have fun? Then *not* Hillary. (Another from of Mutual Assured Destruction, perhaps? Pleasing mental image, both going 'boom!' at the climactic moment.)
Paris Hilton? Oh, forgot, she's off sex for a year.
Ah. Flat Fatima. No, the rules out 'fun', if that is truly a requirement. (For him, I mean.)
I honestly can't think of anyone I'd wish that on. Well, OK, maybe one of the ex-wives....
;-)
Posted by: leelu at August 25, 2006 04:05 PM (KFuCy)
7
Just show up in your shorts Attila,
All of Tehran would be happy for at least a year.
Posted by: luvmyprez at August 25, 2006 07:28 PM (ZyAUY)
8
And, with the right firearm taped to my back I'd be able to take out a few Islamofascisti before they stoned me to death . . . . wait.
Hubby won't be granting permission for this one, I can assure you.
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 25, 2006 11:07 PM (LEEsJ)
9
I say sent Cindy Sheehan. I'd like to see her in a burka being told she can't speak. Besides she likes those dictator types like Chavez.
Posted by: Jack at August 26, 2006 08:39 AM (ib5cE)
10
I suspect that if Sneezy (easier then writing his name) saw an actual naked woman, his head would explode, and I do not mean the little one.
Posted by: William Teach at August 27, 2006 02:49 PM (doAuV)
1
I'm sure most people involved (Europe, US especially) would love to just step back. But then the Iranian's would probably only step forward...toward nukes.
What is to be done?
In a way, all these crises could end up a good thing. Kind of like that Nietzsche quote, "That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger." The situation might, for example, convince us to reduce our need for oil (through technology, hopefully). That would (1) reduce our need for stability in that very unstable part of the world, and (2) reduce the $$$ in crazy peoples' coffers. (The Iranians, Saudis, and Hugo Chavez come to mind...)
Posted by: pcrh at March 10, 2006 01:03 PM (jFaW4)
3
Israel usually handles this kind of thing for us. That way we can denounce it and proclaim ourselves shocked--shocked!--to hear what they've done.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 06, 2006 04:29 PM (zZMVu)
4
Look at you like what? Half-grin and half-disapproval?
If we could selectively bomb the mullahs and the Ayatollah into little glass ornamants, I'd be ever so pleased.
But a good number (probably a majority) of the Iranian people are not our enemies.
Posted by: Kathy K at January 06, 2006 05:07 PM (+Dxgi)
5
I agree with KathyK. About half of the Iranians are under-25-YOs who are sick of the theocracy, and will be the future leaders and citizens of a (hopefully) democratic republic or constitutional monarchy.
Just take out the nuke plants, okay?
Posted by: Mikal at January 06, 2006 05:27 PM (IQTeT)
6
Like what? Doesn't my expression convey the impression of stunned awe at your brilliance?
I rather like the equation: Iran=radioactive glass parking lot.
[eeeeevil grin(tm)]
-- R'cat
CatHouse Chat
Posted by: Romeocat at January 06, 2006 07:51 PM (CNIj+)
7
I always look this stunned when someone reads my mind.
Now everybody repeat after me "I'm shocked, shocked that there is a millitary action going on in Iran."
Posted by: Jack at January 06, 2006 08:09 PM (lZ5cx)
8
Preemptive strike haiku:
Winter's sun rising
Geese paddle in cooling pond
Are those F-15's?
Posted by: Stuart Fullerton at January 06, 2006 09:23 PM (IKyv9)
9
Steam rises in air
Reactor core is humming
JDAMs sing dear song
Posted by: Stuart Fullerton at January 06, 2006 09:28 PM (IKyv9)
10
From the east, from sun,
Hellfire missiles screaming home--
Mullahs rend their shirts
Posted by: Stuart Fullerton at January 06, 2006 09:31 PM (IKyv9)
11
Aw, c'mon, Kathy and Mikal: did I need to specify "please minimize civilian casualties"? Obviously, I'm hoping for a surgical strike on the nuclear facilities. I love Iranians: I just don't want their crazy leaders to have nukes.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 06, 2006 09:58 PM (zZMVu)
12
In the air, I see
Planes, and--are those yarmulkes?Holy shit! Kaboom!
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 06, 2006 10:58 PM (zZMVu)
13
In the skies I see
C130's I believe
With drilling rigs
and pipe whose diameter
is just slightly larger
then the nukes diameter
sorry about the pentameter
Posted by: Jack at January 07, 2006 08:18 AM (+JCSV)
14
To do serious damage to Iran's nuclear sites requires a lot more resources than Israel has. They have indicated they may try something anyway.
Rumors have also come out of Washington.
Of course Iranian allied militias sit astride our supply lines and around the Green Zone in Iraq, so there are complications,
100 to 200 a barrel for oil is also possible.
And as for bombing someone "back to the stone edge" that is genocide and rejected by our and Israelis military. It's the sort of thing Iran and North Korea might do. We work hard to directly target the threats.
Posted by: john at January 07, 2006 03:34 PM (9kZbq)
15
Thanks, John. I said "back to the pre-nuclear age," which implies rather a different thing that either the stone age or the stone "edge."
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 07, 2006 06:14 PM (zZMVu)
Posted by: Stuart Fullerton at January 07, 2006 08:49 PM (YUWOy)
17
Flap reads there are about 80 presumed sites in Iran that may be involved in their nuclear program.
About 5-6 B-2's with precision munitions should do the job nicely.
Flap
Posted by: Flap at January 07, 2006 11:48 PM (A8i+J)
18
What are we waiting for? We can use my father's barn!
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 08, 2006 02:03 AM (zZMVu)