The island on Lost is looking less and less like a bad place to be. Once the rest of the globe is irradiated and full of terrorist blowback, an isolated tropical paradise will be a prized locale.
I heard a refrain similar to Tokyo Joe's sometime around... Oh, when was it? Yeah, back in late 2002 I believe. "Oh, war is a last resort. Bush would never invade Iraq unless there was no alternative. Boy are all you liberals marching in the street gonna have red faces when it turns out just to have been sabre-rattling..." Blahdiblahdiblah...
Anyway, yeah, so now Bloomberg's pushing this State Dept. factotum's quote that Iran could have the bomb in 16 days. You know, in a parallel universe where they have tens of thousands more centrifuges and the capacity to refine a higher grade of fissionable material.
Sorry TJ, I've got to go with l4m3 (man is that hard to type!) on this one. You're absolutely right that there's no sane reason why we should bomb Iran, but time and again the admin has proven that they aren't bound by what we call sanity. And so far, this Iran thing is playing out a lot like the Iraq buildup. Leaks to the press about how dangerous Iran is, crazy headlines about Iran bombing us in 16 days, admin officials "on background" telling all sorts of scarry stories about Iran, etc.
I can't find the link right now, but there was a recent article in the NY Times quoting Israeli officials who thought the US saber rattling was a really bad idea. Israel, unlike us, has an extensive human intelligence operation in Iran, and they don't seem nearly as worried about Iran as our gov't is trying to make us.
You're right, Israel would likely launch an attack if they felt it necessary. The same held true for Iraq, but we see how little Israel's inaction mattered.
Good points, Joe, but given that this is the first administration in history to approve the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, I think they feel everything is on the table.
And they might take the opposite lesson from the collateral damage in Iraq -- drop a bigger bomb and you don't have any maimed or wounded, just dead. And the dead don't complain on CNN.
Sure, there's the danger of fallout and radiation, but remember these people don't believe in science. They'll find some hack who insists a "tactical" nuclear strike is possible and surgical. They'll probably use a chemo metaphor, and argue it's needed to drive the cancer out and save the region. See? We're the good guys then!
I just bounce back and forth between TJ and being smacked upside the head by teh l4m3's: heard a refrain similar to Tokyo Joe's sometime around... Oh, when was it? Yeah, back in late 2002 I believe.
11 comments:
Very depressing stuff, and all too possible.
Yeah, and the economy sucks too.
[sigh]
Uhmmm...EEEEEK?
Holy shit...
Lemme get this straight...
I can download Lost? For free?
Well, I'm placated!
The island on Lost is looking less and less like a bad place to be. Once the rest of the globe is irradiated and full of terrorist blowback, an isolated tropical paradise will be a prized locale.
I heard a refrain similar to Tokyo Joe's sometime around... Oh, when was it? Yeah, back in late 2002 I believe. "Oh, war is a last resort. Bush would never invade Iraq unless there was no alternative. Boy are all you liberals marching in the street gonna have red faces when it turns out just to have been sabre-rattling..." Blahdiblahdiblah...
Anyway, yeah, so now Bloomberg's pushing this State Dept. factotum's quote that Iran could have the bomb in 16 days. You know, in a parallel universe where they have tens of thousands more centrifuges and the capacity to refine a higher grade of fissionable material.
Sorry TJ, I've got to go with l4m3 (man is that hard to type!) on this one. You're absolutely right that there's no sane reason why we should bomb Iran, but time and again the admin has proven that they aren't bound by what we call sanity. And so far, this Iran thing is playing out a lot like the Iraq buildup. Leaks to the press about how dangerous Iran is, crazy headlines about Iran bombing us in 16 days, admin officials "on background" telling all sorts of scarry stories about Iran, etc.
I can't find the link right now, but there was a recent article in the NY Times quoting Israeli officials who thought the US saber rattling was a really bad idea. Israel, unlike us, has an extensive human intelligence operation in Iran, and they don't seem nearly as worried about Iran as our gov't is trying to make us.
You're right, Israel would likely launch an attack if they felt it necessary. The same held true for Iraq, but we see how little Israel's inaction mattered.
Not to gang up on you TJ, but I've got to agree with the others. You simply can't use sanity as a guideline for what this crowd will or will not do.
Good points, Joe, but given that this is the first administration in history to approve the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, I think they feel everything is on the table.
And they might take the opposite lesson from the collateral damage in Iraq -- drop a bigger bomb and you don't have any maimed or wounded, just dead. And the dead don't complain on CNN.
Sure, there's the danger of fallout and radiation, but remember these people don't believe in science. They'll find some hack who insists a "tactical" nuclear strike is possible and surgical. They'll probably use a chemo metaphor, and argue it's needed to drive the cancer out and save the region. See? We're the good guys then!
I just bounce back and forth between TJ and being smacked upside the head by teh l4m3's: heard a refrain similar to Tokyo Joe's sometime around... Oh, when was it? Yeah, back in late 2002 I believe.
Post a Comment