• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

Shut up, hissy kitty!

These days, even the boring Republicans are nuts.

When you’re in more danger from the IDF than from Russian shelling, that’s really bad.

People are weird.

The low info voters probably won’t even notice or remember by their next lap around the goldfish bowl.

Democracy cannot function without a free press.

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

The republican ‘Pastor’ of the House is an odious authoritarian little creep.

I really should read my own blog.

You cannot love your country only when you win.

Trump’s cabinet: like a magic 8 ball that only gives wrong answers.

Everybody saw this coming.

If you don’t believe freedom is for everybody, then the thing you love isn’t freedom, it is privilege.

This isn’t Democrats spending madly. This is government catching up.

A tremendous foreign policy asset… to all of our adversaries.

The only way through is to slog through the muck one step at at time.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

Human rights are not a matter of opinion!

You are either for trump or for democracy. Pick one.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.

When we show up, we win.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Iran Thread

Iran Thread

by Tim F|  April 18, 20061:33 pm| 113 Comments

This post is in: Foreign Affairs, War

FacebookTweetEmail

If Iran is between five and ten years from building an atomic bomb, why the hysteria today?

As I see it two basic things are happening. First, Bush likes war. Recall this quote from Hersh:

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

As Iraq trends towards disaster you can hardly blame the president for nervously eyeing that top-shelf space that he set aside in his Presidential Legacy cabinet. If the president hadn’t ordered such a big cabinet he might shuffle around liberating Afghanistan or delivering massive, budget consuming tax cuts to fill the space, but as it is they would just make the gap look bigger.

If I had three years to make a lasting impact I can think of any number of worthwhile things to do. Universal healthcare comes to mind because aside from the obvious benefits you would save the business community from a a wave of insurance-related bankruptcies, splitting off reasonable Republicans from the hardcore John Birchers who oppose the idea for ideological reasons. Or if splitting the GOP sounds like a dumb idea (just ask LBJ), how about energy independence by 2050? That would spark the national imagination like the US-Soviet space race did and a Mars mission never will.

Nope, when the president thinks legacy he means war. That fits with what we know of his character – he threw the dice once and (very likely) lost big so the only thing he can think to do is throw the dice again. If he holds on to power long enough I have no doubt that he would throw the dice a third time in Syria. Assad is a mortal threat as long as he holds on to Saddam’s WMD stockpile, dontchaknow.

Helping Bush along, the GOP needs an issue. Their ad campaign warning Democrats might impeach the president! takes for granted that Americans won’t want the president impeached by November ’06. If his poll numbers sink as fast as gas prices go up I could see those ads starting to backfire. The story behind this mendacious ad is beyond funny – the Republican bill to make illegal immigration a felony proved so unpopular that the GOP ran ads (in Spanish, of course) blaming Democrats for it. If I understand their logic, Democrats also caused the Iraq war by not resisting it strongly enough. Or something like that. More tax cuts won’t pass the laugh test when the famous U.S. debt clock is about to run out of digits.

To get its mojo back the GOP needs war. That does not mean that we will necessarily invade Iran or even drop a single bomb, but it does mean that, pace Kevin Drum, the Democrats might as well suit up for a half-assed retread of the 2002 Iraq midterms.

Of course you can count on Joe Lieberman to jump the starting gun.

Inevitably someone will get flibbertigibbet about whether or not I have a plan to personally solve the Iran crisis. Relax. Iran is not a crisis, at least not yet. The massive stockpile of enriched bomb material that Ahmadinejad recently announced amounts to barely one thousandth of what you need to reach critical mass and that assumes that Iran was even telling the truth. We Americans should not have a hard time imagining a politically ailing leadership (the Mullahs stand at 15% approval) drumming up international conflict to rally support at home.

Russian Federal Nuclear Energy Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko said the enrichment facility in the Iranian city of Natanz, equipped with 164 gas centrifuges, could not produce any significant amount of enriched uranium, which can be used to fuel power plants or produce atomic weapons.

“These centrifuges allow Iran to conduct laboratory uranium enrichment to a low level in insignificant amounts,” Kiriyenko was quoted as saying. “The acquisition of highly enriched uranium is unfeasible today using this method.”

Iran will need to increase its centrifuge supply ten to a hundredfold before it can threaten anybody. In the worst case Iran could theoretically find enriched Uranium on the international black market, but in that case you can add Luxembourg, Swaziland and Paris Hilton to the list of credible nuclear threats. Further it seems ridiculous to claim that we have any lack of Iran solutions floating around, rather the main problems are that A) none of the realistic solutions smell very good, and B) “solutions” involving bombs come from an alternate universe where a bombing campaign will have nothing but happy consequences for us the bombers. We would do ourselves a favor if the only thing we do in the next year is separate the merely unpalatable ideas from the dangerously unrealistic.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Katrina Victims
Next Post: Gov. Ryan Guilty »

Reader Interactions

113Comments

  1. 1.

    Pooh

    April 18, 2006 at 1:44 pm

    the Mullahs stand at 15% approval

    Really? That low? To my mind that makes all this brinksmanship even dumber…

  2. 2.

    t. jasper parnell

    April 18, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    I read the Bush quote differently. It speaks not so much to his warmongering but rather to his conviction that he is, in fact, a vehical for the Lord. Consider the phrase “no Republican or Democrat.” The president here places himself above politics, a man of destiny acting not out of narrow self or partisan interest but rather, because he is freed from the need to obtain votes, he acts in the interest of what is right. This whole magilla also reeks of the president’s personal brand of Christianity, in which Christ in not so much the world’s saviour and teacher (teaching the Gospel of Love and reminding us of the divinity of the “least amongst” us) but rather God grants edifying grace to the elect so that they might act in the world as the Lord desires. Aparently, the Lord desires lower taxes, a tattered social safety net, and an endless round of, what Charles Krautheimer (sp?) called, existential wars.

  3. 3.

    DougJ

    April 18, 2006 at 1:46 pm

    Pooh, these mullahs don’t look at poll numbers. They believe that they speak with God. Sound familiar?

  4. 4.

    Zifnab

    April 18, 2006 at 1:49 pm

    He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican in their right minds, if elected in the future, would have the shitty poll numbers courage to do,” and “that fucking over saving Iran is going to be his new and improved and hopefully more effective than attempts in Isreal and Iraq legacy.”

  5. 5.

    t. jasper parnell

    April 18, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    In other words, Bush is dangerous not because he is a warmonger as such, not because he is a cynical opportunist but because he is actually believes that Jesus, as the president once put it, changed his heart. In so doing, Jesus elevated Bush to a new status and spiritual estate on in which the logic is antinomian and suprarations. It is right be God wills it.

  6. 6.

    Steve

    April 18, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    Is there any source for the 15% poll number? I’ve seen it a number of places, but I’m curious how authoritative it really is.

  7. 7.

    Tim F.

    April 18, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    Really? That low? To my mind that makes all this brinksmanship even dumber…

    Bush went to 90% after 9/11. Nothing rallies people around their national leader like an unprovoked attack.

    Again, I would not argue that they are actually doing that, but if they were it would surprise me very little.

  8. 8.

    Zifnab

    April 18, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    In other words, Bush is dangerous not because he is a warmonger as such, not because he is a cynical opportunist but because he is actually believes that Jesus, as the president once put it, changed his heart.

    Bush is dangerous cause he has nothing to lose. His poll numbers aren’t getting any lower. He’s only got another 3 years in office anyway. And he’s reaped this country for all its worth already. Congress won’t stop him, and even if they tried, Article Something-Something in the Constitution says we’re at War ba-by! And in wartime, the President can run free like the wind.

    So why not invade Iran? Things can’t possibly get any worse for the rest of us. They can’t possibly get any better for him. Unlimited power. No limits. Let the good times roll, kids.

  9. 9.

    DougJ

    April 18, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    I agree with Tim. And I don’t think that their thinking is all that different from how this administration thinks.

    It seems to me this could be win-win for the religious leadership of Iran. If they get bombed, they can rally the country around them. If they don’t get bombed, they can say they stood up to the United States. And, over here, Bush can pretend to be a statesman if he doesn’t bomb and can rally the country around him if he does bomb. So it’s a great issue for both sides. That’s why I expect we’ll hear a lot about it between now and the elections.

  10. 10.

    Tim F.

    April 18, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    Steve,

    The source is that hard-liners, representing the Mullahs more closely than any other Iranian political faction, control 15 percent of seats in parliament. This quote is also useful:

    In a surprising development, the supposedly unified hardline conservative faction, made up of men who have served in the military and intelligence apparatus and who are closely allied with the Supreme Leader, splintered into several camps likely to split the base of conservative voters. This base is variously estimated at 15-25 percent of the electorate.

    Another:

    According to some estimates, only about 15 percent of the Iranian electorate actively backs conservative parties.

    I still have not tracked the 15 percent back to its source, but it seems pretty widely acknowledged.

  11. 11.

    Pharniel

    April 18, 2006 at 2:07 pm

    at some point his own party starts to cut protection and, well, if he has an accident, that’s what myrtrs are for…

  12. 12.

    Steve

    April 18, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    Ok, well, I’m not sure that representation in a parliamentary system really translates into an “approval rating.” It may well be the case that only 15% of Iranians prefer a hard-liner, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the other 85% actually disapprove of the hard-liners.

    I don’t disagree with the fundamental point – that one shouldn’t think of Iran as nothing but a seething pit of angry jihadists – but I think the concept of “15% approval” is getting used a bit too glibly here.

  13. 13.

    ppGaz

    April 18, 2006 at 2:15 pm

    the Mullahs stand at 15% approval

    When did we start calling the Bush Administration “The Mullahs?”

  14. 14.

    slickdpdx

    April 18, 2006 at 2:21 pm

    Its certainly fortunate for Bush that Ahmadinejad is so accomodating of Republican election strategy.

  15. 15.

    Perry Como

    April 18, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    When did we start calling the Bush Administration “The Mullahs?”

    It was in this week’s BDS Memo. I can forward it to you if you missed it.

  16. 16.

    Pooh

    April 18, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    Bush went to 90% after 9/11. Nothing rallies people around their national leader like an unprovoked attack.

    Yes, that was precisely my point.

  17. 17.

    Anderson

    April 18, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    In the worst case Iran could theoretically find enriched Uranium on the international black market, but in that case you can add Luxembourg, Swaziland and Paris Hilton to the list credible nuclear threats.

    I think a preemptive strike against Paris Hilton would rally the nation behind Bush like nothing else. Hell, I might have to switch parties myself.

  18. 18.

    Jill

    April 18, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    The reason for the Iran hysteria is the elections coming in November. War-mongering and fear-mongering were a winning strategy in ’02 and ’04. Let’s just hope that most voters see the error of their ways.

  19. 19.

    LITBMueller

    April 18, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    Excellent summary, Tim!

    What I’m really hoping to see more of is reasoned, rational people start to actually have the courage to say: “Iran gets the bomb, and…so what?”

    It wasn’t all that long ago that another madman named Stalin had actual nuclear weapons (not just programs and centrifuges), and not a single bomb was dropped. Anyone who wants to argue that the leadership currently in Iran is crazier than Joe Stalin, you’re welcome to give it a shot!

    So, what did happen back then? Well, in the US we kept shitting our pants for nearly half a century, ducked and covered, and spent tons of money on weapons. The Soviets ended up spending themselves into oblivion, with Reagan and Gorbie’s glasnost speeding up the demise.

    So, why are we shitting our pants once more, afraid of a two-bit dictatorial regime in the Middle East. Because WAR + ? = PROFIT!

    Seriously, though, why not say to Iran, “Go ahead, there, fellas. Build nukes. You wanna waste your money on that crap, go for it. Just know, if you threaten our allies or proliferate any tech, we’ll blow you away.”

    Its always been much easier to just dismiss leaders as “crazy.” Problem is, doing so leads to foolish policy, and ignores the Universal Constant: those with power will do anything to maintain that power. In other words, the Iranians aren’t going to strike first, because they know they will get pasted.

  20. 20.

    OCSteve

    April 18, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    If Iran is between five and ten years from building an atomic bomb, why the hysteria today?

    Because that is not a reliable figure and these experts have been wrong time and again?

    I’m not saying you are wrong not to worry (10 years, plenty of time) – but I do think you might want to consider a couple of other things in your analysis:

    on Thursday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Tehran was “presently conducting research” on the P-2 centrifuge, boasting that it would quadruple Iran’s enrichment powers.

    Research which they may have been secretly conducting for years.

    The Federation of American Scientists says 3 years if they add 1 new P1 centrifuge per day to their existing cascade.

    Iran’s deputy nuclear chief, Mohammad Saeedi, said Wednesday that Iran intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges by late 2006, and then expand the program to 54,000 centrifuges

    3,000 puts them in the months timeframe. 54,000 allows them to produce a bomb every 16 days. The 164-centrifuge cascade was to perfect the process. Now it is just a matter of adding more centrifuges as fast as they can assemble them, and/or moving to the improved P-2 centrifuge.

    Finally of course, these experts and analysts have been off by years on the Soviet bomb, the Chinese bomb, the Indian bomb, the Pakistani bomb… Surprised every time.

    I wish I had your optimism :)

  21. 21.

    Pixie

    April 18, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I don’t give a flying rat turd if Iran gets nukes or not. We have a some brass pair, sitting on a mountain of nuclear weapons, and engaging in pre-emptive wars and then pointing the finger at another country, telling them what they can and cannot have. Screw that, WE’RE the rogue nation here.

  22. 22.

    Rick Moran

    April 18, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    “Bush likes war…”

    Please tell me how the quote that follows that idiotic statement in any way, shape, or form, reveals that the President “likes” war.

    It doesn’t of course. And the rest of your amatuerish, juvenile, craven analysis of “why Iran now,” can be put in the same trash can.

  23. 23.

    Barry

    April 18, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    “In the worst case Iran could theoretically find enriched Uranium on the international black market, but in that case you can add Luxembourg, Swaziland and Paris Hilton to the list credible nuclear threats. ”

    In that case one could add groups without significant industrial bases to the list, such as Al Qaida. IIRC, a gun-type U235 bomb weighing 10 tons was considered so reliable in 1945 that it didn’t need a test. Be a real b*tch if a few of those came in, packed in cargo containers.

  24. 24.

    gratefulcub

    April 18, 2006 at 3:14 pm

    the Mullahs stand at 15% approval

    Really? That low? To my mind that makes all this brinksmanship even dumber…

    Ahmadinejad is not a Mullah. There seems to be infighting going on within Iran. The Mullahs rigged the election in favor of Ahmadinejad, thinking he would be their lackey. Since then, he has purged the ministries and replaced them with ‘hardliners’.

    We can’t negotiate with Iran now. It would appear that we will give in to crazy sword rattling, while we refused to talk more moderate regimes.

    There is no clear picture of the undercurrents in Iran. We have heard for years that the younger generation is progressive and ready for reform, but we can’t know for sure. Ahmadinejad has struck the right chord with at least a large minority of the population. They don’t like being pushed around by the Great Satan, and they like a leader that fights back. Persians are proud of their Persian culture, even if they don’t believe in Ahmadinejad’s politics, they appreciate him for taking a stand.

  25. 25.

    Broken

    April 18, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    In that case one could add groups without significant industrial bases to the list, such as Al Qaida. IIRC, a gun-type U235 bomb weighing 10 tons was considered so reliable in 1945 that it didn’t need a test. Be a real b*tch if a few of those came in, packed in cargo containers.

    If the Admin was actually concerned about port security, the chances of getting a nuke in-country would be just about zero. This Admin loves to bring up the WWII analogy. How about this one:

    More time has passed since 9/11 than from Pearl Harbor to the end of WWII. In that time, both Germany and Japan were defeated. And yet, given even more time, this Admin can’t even secure the ports against a 10 ton Hiroshima bomb?

  26. 26.

    demimondian

    April 18, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    I think a preemptive strike against Paris Hilton would rally the nation behind Bush like nothing else. Hell, I might have to switch parties myself.

    I don’t think I’d want to attend any parties she attends anyway, but I can certainly see how one might choose to leave in the event of a preemtive military strike against a party she was attending.

  27. 27.

    Perry Como

    April 18, 2006 at 3:31 pm

    Why Iran really wants a bomb:

    Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed “the nuclear club”, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into “grand occultation” in 941.

    Cuckoo.

  28. 28.

    gratefulcub

    April 18, 2006 at 3:32 pm

    Honest question: Which is worse, war with Iran now, or a nuclear armed Iran in 3 years?

    War in Iran has the possibility of being WWIII. Economic depression. Energy shortages. ME instability that could lead to all out war. IMO, war with Iran is a lose-lose situation, there is no good outcome.

    A nuclear armed Iran is not optimal either. But, how dangerous would they be? Since the ouster of the Shah, the Mullahs have been rational. They haven’t left their borders in an aggressive fashion. (The Iraq-Iran War was SH’s war, and ours) They have practiced rational self preservation. They know that a nuclear attack against the US by Iran, by terrorists, or by accident, results in the destruction of Iran.

    Ahmadinejad is not a madman, he is a rational actor in the midst of a powerplay. His screeching about nukes is for internal politics.

    Or, he is a madman convinced that he can escalate the situation until he brings back the 12th Imam to dispense justice across the globe.

    So, I pose the question again:
    Which is worse, war with Iran now, or a nuclear armed Iran in 3 years?

  29. 29.

    Broken

    April 18, 2006 at 3:32 pm

    Scare-mongering from Scarborough last night:

    Joe: …Monica, is there any possibility that the Iranian leaders that are in charge right now would ever be so irrational as to launch a nuclear attack on cities like Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., if they got this nuclear device?

    Monica: Unequivocally, yes, Joe. And in fact, the hypothetical scenario that you just laid out, that hypothetic ground zero is just a few blocks from where I am sitting here tonight. So, it is an incredibly frightening scenario and absolutely within the realm of possibility given the nature of the regime we‘re talking about. This Tehran regime covers the terrorist Trifecta. They do have weapons of mass destruction, possibly even nuclear at this point. They export terror and they do support al Qaeda

    Nothing like a little springtime war-hysteria.

  30. 30.

    gratefulcub

    April 18, 2006 at 3:35 pm

    Perry Coumo,
    I could say that a Southern Baptist prayer circle is cuckoo, because to me it is. But belief in the 12th Imam is a basic tenet of the Shia faith. That doesn’t really show that he is mentally ‘cuckoo’.

    And, it could have been a political stunt. He is trying to wrestle power from the Imams. He may be showing that he too is devout, but a better politician.

  31. 31.

    gratefulcub

    April 18, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    If we nuke Iran, can we stop talking about Duke LaCrosse players? I may be down with some ‘tactical nukes’ if that is the case.

  32. 32.

    Punchy

    April 18, 2006 at 3:40 pm

    Irony: We go and drop a relatively untested nuculear bunker-buster bomb on some Iranian facility. It fails to detonate. The Iranians run in there, unscrew the cap, and take out the already enriched U235. They then send it to Isreal via a missle, where it obiterates Tel Aviv.

    Bush could be a stand-up comic if he also didn’t control The Button and The Codes.

  33. 33.

    LITBMueller

    April 18, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    I dunno Rick Moran…seems to me that any President that would consider, and discuss with the Prime Minister of Britain, painting a US U-2 in UN colors, and flying it over Iraq in the hopes that it would get shot down, so we’d have a reason to go to war, might just like war!

    Or, that could just be me…

  34. 34.

    Perry Como

    April 18, 2006 at 3:48 pm

    gratefulcub,

    I’d agree with you about the SBC. I used to go to those prayer circles. If Ahmadinejad actually believes he is consulting with the 12th Imam, he’s a nut. That would be like Bush saying he takes a stroll with Jesus every afternoon in the Rose Garden…wait a second.

  35. 35.

    gratefulcub

    April 18, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    Does anyone think we can just drop some smart bombs on Iran, take out their nuke facilities, and leave it at that? That Iran would just lick their wounds rue the day that they didn’t cower under the threats of GWBush?

    If we drop a bomb on Iran, the world changes instantly. That is an act of war, and Iran will take it as an act of war. The Iranian leaders may have 15% approval, but when a bomb lands in Iran, they will rally around their country and fight.

  36. 36.

    Steve

    April 18, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed “the nuclear club”, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into “grand occultation” in 941.

    The man is a politician. He could be an atheist for all this story proves.

    It’s good politics in Iran to appear to be a devout Muslim, just like it’s good politics to look like you’re standing up to George Bush.

  37. 37.

    gratefulcub

    April 18, 2006 at 3:53 pm

    PC,
    It’s all relative. We believe people talking to God are hearing voices, are lying, or are drunk. Fundamentalist Shia may not see it that way. I don’t pretend to know how the Iranian people think, but it is a religion founded on a guy ‘consulting’ with God in a cave.

  38. 38.

    Tim F.

    April 18, 2006 at 3:55 pm

    seems to me that any President that would consider, and discuss with the Prime Minister of Britain, painting a US U-2 in UN colors, and flying it over Iraq in the hopes that it would get shot down, so we’d have a reason to go to war, might just like war!

    It’s not a particularly debatable point. If a guy has his aircraft carrier circle back out to sea so that he can have an excuse to dress up in a flight suit and land on a jet rather than take the five-minute trip by Marine One, he likes war. Statements like this,

    I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn’t true, but it is true.

    just add a layer of bullshit to the painfully obvious.

  39. 39.

    Tim F.

    April 18, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    That would be like Bush saying he takes a stroll with Jesus every afternoon in the Rose Garden…wait a second.

    I understood that to be your point all along. Nicely baited, if you ask me.

  40. 40.

    The Other Steve

    April 18, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    Bush is going to attack Iran. No question about it.

    The same arguments are coming out in the LTEs to the newspapers. Iraq is in violation of UN security council resolutions, blah blah blah.

    We can only hope the Democrats impeach the SOB by November.

  41. 41.

    slickdpdx

    April 18, 2006 at 4:23 pm

    Regarding the Rose Garden comments:

    But aren’t many of you arguing (explicitly or implicitly)that Bush is a crazy warmonger? You may have zung the Christians, but your words are made of rubber and they bounced right back to your gluey self!

  42. 42.

    SeesThroughIt

    April 18, 2006 at 4:56 pm

    I think a preemptive strike against Paris Hilton would rally the nation behind Bush like nothing else.

    I’d fully support carpet bombing the Hilton mansion–with all Hiltons inside, of course–just like the Canadians bombed the shit out of the Baldwin residence in the South Park movie.

  43. 43.

    stickler

    April 18, 2006 at 4:57 pm

    Honest question: Which is worse, war with Iran now, or a nuclear armed Iran in 3 years?

    This is the kind of mendacious, stupid reasoning that got us trapped in Mesopotamia in the first place. Why, for Judas Priest’s sake, is it America’s critical business to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons? It wasn’t worth a war when Pakistan or India got nukes. We haven’t invaded Israel, and they haven’t even signed the NPT, or allowed international inspections of any kind.

    Any war with Iran will be catastrophic to our economy and to our 150,000 service personnel in Iraq. It will cripple our foreign policy and turn the US into a pariah state. This will be true whether it happens tomorrow or three years from now.

    Stupid gits who claim we can just roar in there with a few B-2s and a bunch of bunker-busters are nuts. Even if we eliminate the nuclear program — a big, freaking “if” — we still wage war against all international law and ensure disaster. And that’s even if we manage NOT to bomb the Chinese embassy this time around.

  44. 44.

    Steve

    April 18, 2006 at 5:04 pm

    This is the kind of mendacious, stupid reasoning that got us trapped in Mesopotamia in the first place.

    Interesting thing to say about a guy you seem to agree with.

  45. 45.

    Pb

    April 18, 2006 at 5:04 pm

    Which was worse: war with the USSR, or a nuclear armed USSR?

  46. 46.

    Pb

    April 18, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    aren’t many of you arguing (explicitly or implicitly)that Bush is a crazy warmonger?

    As opposed to what, a cold, calculated warmonger? Or just an incompetent warmonger? I’m not really thrilled with any of the obvious possibilities here.

  47. 47.

    Perry Como

    April 18, 2006 at 5:19 pm

    slickdpdx, good point. I can’t think of any Christian warmongers. Of course my knowledge of history is limited to the previous thirty seconds. Beyond that…ooh, shiny!

    At the moment we have President “I like the pop-up version of the Left Behind series” Bush facing off against President “The 12th Imam is my homie” Ahmadinejad. To what degree either one is a true believer? The only ones who know are the voices in their heads.

    But I’m grabbing the popcorn and the 3500 spf. Might as well get a front row seat.

  48. 48.

    Perry Como

    April 18, 2006 at 5:22 pm

    Pb Says:

    Which was worse: war with the USSR, or a nuclear armed USSR?

    You can’t hug your babushka with nuclear arms.

  49. 49.

    The Other Steve

    April 18, 2006 at 5:34 pm

    Which was worse: war with the USSR, or a nuclear armed USSR?

    “The most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war.”
    – Erasmus

    Or if you prefer the American version

    “There never was a good war, or a bad peace.”
    – Benjamin Franklin

  50. 50.

    Richard Bennett

    April 18, 2006 at 5:35 pm

    Bush likes war

    Now there’s a candidate for the subtlety-in-blogging award.

  51. 51.

    Tim F.

    April 18, 2006 at 5:43 pm

    But aren’t many of you arguing (explicitly or implicitly)that Bush is a crazy warmonger?

    I see two camps here. Some people think that the president is crazy while others think that he is a warmonger. I don’t think that he’s crazy.

  52. 52.

    slickdpdx

    April 18, 2006 at 5:43 pm

    Thanks Perry!

    BTW – I think I can imagine some pretty bad peaces, assuming they’re not artifically defined out of the peace category.

  53. 53.

    Broken

    April 18, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    That would be like Bush saying he takes a stroll with Jesus every afternoon in the Rose Garden…wait a second.

    “I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best.”

    -George Bush, today’s press conference

    He “hears the voices”!?

  54. 54.

    JWeidner

    April 18, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    Does Iran even have a delivery device capable of reaching the US? I mean, Scarborough is quoted above, with whomever was his guest, and they’re essentially saying that if Iran gets a nuke, expect a strike on the US (NY, LA, DC) within the next week. (Seems ridiculous and irresponsible to be claiming something like that, but, par for the course for Scarborough)

    I mean, I’ve never heard of Iran having a missile with the payload/range capabilities that would be required to strike us here. Granted, there are lower tech methods of delivery, but they seem highly unlikely. I mean, trying to send a nuclear weapon through our ports (usually acknowledged as one of the weakest areas of our nation’s security) seems an extrememly risky (and traceable) method for another nation to take.

    Really, it seems like we would just be playing the mutually assured destruction game again, just with Iran this time instead of Russia…

  55. 55.

    slickdpdx

    April 18, 2006 at 5:50 pm

    I’ll concede my definition of crazy may have been a little broad for rhetorical effect, including not only the clinically insane but also the stupid foolish reckless or irrational. Like on Jackass. E.g. “Look at that crazy guy shoot himself in the nuts with a paintball gun just to get some tv time.”

  56. 56.

    jg

    April 18, 2006 at 5:52 pm

    Does Iran even have a delivery device capable of reaching the US?

    Whether they do or not they could have one in sixteen days.

  57. 57.

    Perry Como

    April 18, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    Tim F. Says:

    Some people think that the president is crazy while others think that he is a warmonger.

    The two are not mutually exclusive. Some would even argue that the latter actually requires some of the former.

    Broken, are you serious? Did he actually say that?! Now I have to go get more butter.

  58. 58.

    JWeidner

    April 18, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Whether they do or not they could have one in sixteen days.

    Sorry, I don’t follow that assertion. What are you referring to?

  59. 59.

    Broken

    April 18, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    Broken, are you serious? Did he actually say that?!

    Yup, Bush hears voices. He’s the “decider”.

    Here’s a link to the video:

  60. 60.

    Broken

    April 18, 2006 at 6:19 pm

    Sorry, here’s the link:

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/

  61. 61.

    Perry Como

    April 18, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    Thanks Broken.

    /me reaches for the salt

  62. 62.

    Hieronymus Braintree

    April 18, 2006 at 6:23 pm

    HAND-WRITTEN LETTERS AND THE BOMB

    Hand-written letters (and it’s got to be hand-written—desk-top publishing is considered cheating) are the second-most effective means of lobbying after face time. One hand-written letter is regarded by your senators and house rep as representing the will of 200 voters, which is really, really huge. Each letter takes about five minutes to complete from finding your congressperson’s address on the Internet to licking and stamping the envelope. That’s really not a lot to give our supremely dysfunctional government a much-needed wake-up call.

    To find the name of your representative, click here:

    http://www.house.gov/

    The address is: House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515

    To find the name and address of your senators, click here:

    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

    Below is a suggested letter. Feel free to copy it, although variations are slightly more effective. Keep them short (about two to three sentences is best) and polite. Please.

    Dear Senator/Representative ___________,

    It’s been reported that President Bush intends to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran, not because they are a threat to anyone today, but because they may become a threat years from now.

    You MUST demand the truth and reassert that it is congress’s right, not the President’s to declare war. An unprovoked nuclear attack would be a permanent stain on our country’s reputation.

    Sincerely,
    Your name
    Your address

    Please pass this around to everyone you can think of. It really is important.

  63. 63.

    jg

    April 18, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    JWeidner Says:

    Whether they do or not they could have one in sixteen days.
    Sorry, I don’t follow that assertion. What are you referring to?

    I’m referring to truthiness. Facts won’t make any difference when the spinning happens so why worry about it.

  64. 64.

    JWeidner

    April 18, 2006 at 6:33 pm

    I’m referring to truthiness. Facts won’t make any difference when the spinning happens so why worry about it.

    Got it. Thought you were providing a real answer. Getting so a person can’t tell the snark from the real thing around here!

    I agree with you, by the way. The truth won’t matter so long as it can be spun as an immediate emergency.

  65. 65.

    jaime

    April 18, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    I’m all for war IF and only if the likes of OC Steve, Darrell, PB, abd every little cheerleader is on the front lines. You don’t get to sit this one out this time and comment from the safety of your cheetos bag.

    but it is a religion founded on a guy ‘consulting’ with God in a cave.

    And a virgin birth to a sinless man who speaks to God and Satan alternately, disappears, reappears, and disappears again more logical somehow. My Jesus is better than your Mohammed? Is this is what this about? Two batshit crazy constituencies having a religious cock-off. Sheesh.

  66. 66.

    DougJ

    April 18, 2006 at 6:50 pm

    While we’re discussing the approval ratings of the mullahs, thought I’d let everyone know the Survey USA nationwide poll numbers came out today and Bush’s approval clocks in at a cool 35.6%. The pollkatz index had him at 35.8%, further confirming my belief that his pollkatz and Survey USA numbers are in general nearly identical and that they’re the only approval numbers worth looking at.

  67. 67.

    Perry Como

    April 18, 2006 at 6:54 pm

    The pollkatz index had him at 35.8%, further confirming my belief that his pollkatz and Survey USA numbers are in general nearly identical and that they’re the only approval numbers worth looking at.

    The only poll numbers I pay attention to are the poll numbers God tells me. He says that Bush is sailing at a smooth 91%. Who am I to argue with Him?

  68. 68.

    DougJ

    April 18, 2006 at 7:35 pm

    What’s the margin of error on God’s poll? He uses notoriously small sample sizes, so it could be enormous.

  69. 69.

    alkali

    April 18, 2006 at 7:52 pm

    I’m very disappointed that this comment thread, to date, does not include the obvious joke about Paris Hilton already having been invaded.

  70. 70.

    Rex

    April 18, 2006 at 8:07 pm

    There is a Hilton hotel in Prague.

    What more of a connection do you need?

    Bomb Paris Hilton.

  71. 71.

    Perry Como

    April 18, 2006 at 8:10 pm

    What’s the margin of error on God’s poll? He uses notoriously small sample sizes, so it could be enormous.

    God uses a sample size of one: Himself. The reason Bush is at 91% is because of the lack of gay bashing. God hates fags, and Bush hasn’t been pushing that portion of God’s agenda recently. Besides, omnipotence has its privileges.

  72. 72.

    CaseyL

    April 18, 2006 at 8:17 pm

    Ol’ Banjo Jim used to think he heard God talking to him.

    Good obedient soul that he was, he obeyed The Word, though he did wonder why God was so insistent he buy a Team Chief cab for his truck and attend every NASCAR event within a 3-state radius. (The Team Chief wouldn’t even go on the truck right, so Banjo Jim had to rig it like a fifth wheel camper.)

    Then Jim found out it wasn’t God after all, just his own fillings picking up a race car crew’s radio communications.

    “Sorta sad,” Jim says now, if you ask him. “I liked bein’ The Lord’s ‘good buddy.’ On th’ other hand, at least I’m not havin’ to drive out to every speedway in every East Jesus little town every damn week anymore.”

    The biggest thing Banjo Jim has to worry about now is all those speeding tickets he got when he thought he was obeying The Lord’s command to “Floor it, man! Pass that dumb fuck Number 7 on the outside!”

    “I hear the traffic court judge is a God-fearin man,” Jim told his lawyer. “So maybe he’ll cut me some slack. It was an honest mistake, right?”

    His lawyer said, “You better leave out the part where God says ‘fuck.'”

  73. 73.

    demimondian

    April 18, 2006 at 9:50 pm

    God uses a sample size of one: Himself. The reason Bush is at 91% is because of the lack of gay bashing. God hates fags, and Bush hasn’t been pushing that portion of God’s agenda recently. Besides, omnipotence has its privileges.

    Jesus, and here all these years, I’ve spent my time explaining the Triune mystery. Now you’re telling me that I’ve got defend the Undecemune mystery?

    And, hey, what are the other eight parts? Snow WHite and the seven dwarves?

  74. 74.

    The Other Steve

    April 18, 2006 at 9:53 pm

    Holy Rats running off the ship…

    Bush is only liked in 5 states
    Every other state has higher disapproval than approval.

    It’s too bad we fired that wingnut Carol at work. Man, I’d sure love to rub this in.

  75. 75.

    Rome Again

    April 18, 2006 at 10:09 pm

    And a virgin birth to a sinless man who speaks to God and Satan alternately, disappears, reappears, and disappears again more logical somehow. My Jesus is better than your Mohammed? Is this is what this about? Two batshit crazy constituencies having a religious cock-off. Sheesh.

    Okay Jaime, I’ll stop ignoring you now.

    It has always been about competing religions, did you not know this?

  76. 76.

    Rome Again

    April 18, 2006 at 10:14 pm

    By the way Jaime, a very apt description of Christianity there, the only thing I would add is that he stated he was only there for the lost sheep of Israel before he was crucified, and immediately after he died (and came back to life?) he stated that he was then there for the entire world.

    The message changed. Of course the entire Bible (both the original testament and the new) were written by many hands, and both testaments even state some of the writers could be liars.

    Personally the only ones I listen to are Isaiah, Jeremiah and right now I’m deciding on Ezekiel. Well, that’s not exactly true, I do have this fondness for Genesis 6 where they describe the angels mating with humans, thus creating the “men of renown”, of which George Bush is a descendant, and unfortunately, so am I.

  77. 77.

    DougJ

    April 18, 2006 at 10:20 pm

    I do have this fondness for Genesis 6 where they describe the angels mating with humans, thus creating the “men of renown”

    Would that fall under the heading of man-animal hybrids?

  78. 78.

    Rome Again

    April 18, 2006 at 10:37 pm

    Would that fall under the heading of man-animal hybrids?

    Not exactly, it would fall under etherial and non-etherial. Angel/men is more like it, you may know them as kings and such.

    Of course, maybe animals are made of some of the same stuff as angels (I don’t know) and then that might apply, in which case, Bush himself could be called a manimal.

  79. 79.

    Rome Again

    April 18, 2006 at 10:39 pm

    Actually, I called it a fondness, that’s not the correct word. It’s more like a dark obsession, since the men of renown are my ancestors.

    I wish I wasn’t related to them, but, unfortunately, I am.

  80. 80.

    The Sanity Inspector

    April 19, 2006 at 7:15 am

    Hasn’t Bush been pursuing diplomatic solutions with Iran thus far?

  81. 81.

    Steve

    April 19, 2006 at 7:54 am

    Well, Bush has been refraining from bombing Iran while the Europeans attempt diplomatic solutions. I guess you could call that diplomacy. I don’t think making repeated speeches to the effect that “Iran needs to end its nuclear program or else” is really diplomacy, though. I would call it brinkmanship.

  82. 82.

    Rome Again

    April 19, 2006 at 8:39 am

    The name Bush and the word Diplomacy in the same sentence? Hahahahahahaha! That’s a good one.

  83. 83.

    gratefulcub

    April 19, 2006 at 8:47 am

    I need to write more clearly, obviously. I am a hopeless unbeliever that was accused of making the Boykin argument:

    And a virgin birth to a sinless man who speaks to God and Satan alternately, disappears, reappears, and disappears again more logical somehow. My Jesus is better than your Mohammed? Is this is what this about? Two batshit crazy constituencies having a religious cock-off. Sheesh.

    And I am most definitely against any attack on Iran and made the point that they are rational and can be deterred from using a bomb they might create, yet my repeated posts trying to say that come back as:

    This is the kind of mendacious, stupid reasoning that got us trapped in Mesopotamia in the first place. Why, for Judas Priest’s sake, is it America’s critical business to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons? It wasn’t worth a war when Pakistan or India got nukes. We haven’t invaded Israel, and they haven’t even signed the NPT, or allowed international inspections of any kind.

    And, all of this before my coffee

  84. 84.

    The Other Steve

    April 19, 2006 at 9:03 am

    Hasn’t Bush been pursuing diplomatic solutions with Iran thus far?

    Someone who believes the only reason Iran is talking nuclear is to take out Israel would probably think that Bush’s statements are diplomacy.

    NPR reported yesterday that there was apparently an Iranian foreign Minister in Washington DC last month. It was reported by the Financial Times and has been confirmed by Iran and the US State Dept, although the State Dept is claiming they didn’t know about it at the time, nor did they meet with him.

    Let’s pray that the State Dept is lying, and they have been meeting with Iran through back channels.

  85. 85.

    gratefulcub

    April 19, 2006 at 9:11 am

    If you were Iran, wouldn’t you want the bomb? Wouldn’t you believe you needed the bomb for self preservation?

    Israel has it. We have it. We put them in the Axis o evil, then invaded the weakest of the three. Without the bomb, they are the second weakest, and we already have military in the area.

    There are reasons other than a) he’s a madman or b) they are itching to attack the US that would cause Iran to seek nuk-yu-lur technology.

  86. 86.

    D. Mason

    April 19, 2006 at 9:21 am

    I wish I wasn’t related to them, but, unfortunately, I am.

    So you’re a Nephilim? Hmm..

  87. 87.

    Rome Again

    April 19, 2006 at 10:56 am

    So you’re a Nephilim? Hmm..

    Well, sort of yes. I’m descended from a few, but my ancestors were mostly human.

    On my mother’s side, I have ancestors who were Nephilim. Not all of her ancestors, mind you, just a few. On my father’s side, as far as I know, there are none. My genes go back to the Egyptian pharoahs, and Roman emperors, and even to Alexander the Great’s father, Philip. It’s an interesting ancestral line to study, although I’m not proud of the way they treated people. Some of my ancestors include Constantine, Pepin, and the Plantagenet kings (which includes the house of D’Anjou), and even Lady Godiva. Then it moves down to a bunch of insignificant “almost royals” (such as the Baynards who lived in Baynard’s castle, which was on the Thames, but no longer exists) before it moves to the U.S. and becomes a bunch of tobacco farmers (yes, my Baynard line became farmers).

  88. 88.

    Broken

    April 19, 2006 at 11:00 am

    The name Bush and the word Diplomacy in the same sentence? Hahahahahahaha! That’s a good one.

    Such a skeptic. Bush’s diplomacy works like this:

    Label said country as Evil. Issue ultimatum (that’s the diplomacy thingy). When said country caves to ultimatum, invade or bomb. Be sure to use the word “freedom”.

  89. 89.

    capelza

    April 19, 2006 at 11:33 am

    Rome Again…how do you get back to the Nephilim or even Phillip of Makedon)? I think the lines pretty much becomes blurred some little while before Clovis and the other Germanic chieftans.

    Actually almost all of us with European heritages are descended from Hugh Capet. That guy got around. ;)

    Though, being female I prefer Adelaide de Vermandois. She is the mother of many of us many times over.

  90. 90.

    The Sanity Inspector

    April 19, 2006 at 12:25 pm

    If you were Iran, wouldn’t you want the bomb? Wouldn’t you believe you needed the bomb for self preservation?

    If you were Iran, would you believe that it was necessary to impose an Islamic theocracy, fund Hezbollah terrorist kidnappings and attacks, and openly jubilate about the prospect of destroying Israel, Britain, and the U. S.?

    Yes, you would, because you’d be Iran, and not Joe Westerner in a turban.

    It is not one world.

  91. 91.

    gratefulcub

    April 19, 2006 at 12:52 pm

    It is not one world.

    point taken, but…..are there now rational realpolitick reasons for Iran wanting the bomb

  92. 92.

    The Sanity Inspector

    April 19, 2006 at 1:10 pm

    …are there now rational realpolitick reasons for Iran wanting the bomb?

    So far the only reasons I’ve heard are a) to destroy Israel, and b) to deter any obstruction or retaliation in the pursuance of (a).

    It isn’t especially rational or realpolitick-ish in my precinct. But neither is the concept of jihad–which nevertheless is a real, ongoing phenomenon in the world.

    If, after all this advance warning, Iran gets a nuke in the coming decade and does something horrible with it, we’re all going to owe Neville Chamberlain an apology.

  93. 93.

    jaime

    April 19, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    It has always been about competing religions, did you not know this?

    The war on terror being a holy war will only make things worse because being rational takes a back seat to being right. It’s the crazies on both sides that need to STFU.

    Personally the only ones I listen to are Isaiah, Jeremiah and right now I’m deciding on Ezekiel.

    I think it’s funny that westerners complain about how savage the Koran is and ignore completely the entire old testament. The old testament is fucked up, which is probably a big reason why Jesus kinda tossed it aside.

  94. 94.

    capelza

    April 19, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    Real politik…how about the United States occupying the country on either side of yours?

  95. 95.

    The Sanity Inspector

    April 19, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    Real politik…how about the United States occupying the country on either side of yours?

    You say that like it’s a bad thing…

    *****

    One may argue about the precise role of religion in the terrorists’ mindset, but Mr Blair and Mr Bush, both of them religious believers who purport to derive their moral stances from their religions, are certainly not part of the problem: on the contrary, they are leading the solution. Mr Bush, speaking to an audience of children, addressed the question that everyone has asked: “Why would somebody hate so badly”? And he replied: “my answer is, there’s evil in the world. But we can overcome evil. We’re good.” This is the simple truth — a truth on which all our futures depend — yet the moment Mr Bush uttered it, all the intellectuals in the Western world winced. Even those who, like myself, agreed with the proposition, winced, vicariously, because we recognised the intensity of the taboo that was being broken.
    — David Deutsch, “What Now”, Oct. 25, 2001
    http://www.edge.org/documents/whatnow/whatnow_deutsch.html

  96. 96.

    The Sanity Inspector

    April 19, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    I think it’s funny that westerners complain about how savage the Koran is and ignore completely the entire old testament.

    Apples and hand grenades.

    “Unless you happen to be a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite, these Biblical passages simply do not apply to you. The Qur’an exhorts believers to fight unbelievers without specifying anywhere in the text that only certain unbelievers are to be fought, or only for a certain period of time, or some other distinction. Taking the texts at face value, the command to make war against unbelievers is open-ended and universal. The Old Testament, in contrast, records God’s commands to the Israelites to make war againt particular people only. This is jarring to modern sensibilities, to be sure, but it does not amount to the same thing. That’s one reason why Jews and Christians haven’t formed terror groups around the world that quote these Scriptures to justify killing civilian non-combatants.”
    — Robert Spencer, _The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam_, 2005

  97. 97.

    capelza

    April 19, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    You say that like it’s a bad thing…

    I certainly would if I was Iranian… :) Surrounded by the only nation to ever use nukes and a nut job administration to boot. Yeah.

  98. 98.

    capelza

    April 19, 2006 at 1:27 pm

    The Sanity Inspector Says:

    I think it’s funny that westerners complain about how savage the Koran is and ignore completely the entire old testament.

    Apples and hand grenades.

    “Unless you happen to be a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite, these Biblical passages simply do not apply to you. The Qur’an exhorts believers to fight unbelievers without specifying anywhere in the text that only certain unbelievers are to be fought, or only for a certain period of time, or some other distinction. Taking the texts at face value, the command to make war against unbelievers is open-ended and universal. The Old Testament, in contrast, records God’s commands to the Israelites to make war againt particular people only. This is jarring to modern sensibilities, to be sure, but it does not amount to the same thing. That’s one reason why Jews and Christians haven’t formed terror groups around the world that quote these Scriptures to justify killing civilian non-combatants.”—Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam, 2005

    So the OT god gave a specific shopping list. Well that makes ALL the difference. *rolls eyes*. As for Christian terror groups? You think there aren’t any?

  99. 99.

    The Other Steve

    April 19, 2006 at 1:36 pm

    If, after all this advance warning, Iran gets a nuke in the coming decade and does something horrible with it, we’re all going to owe Neville Chamberlain an apology.

    Interesting. The same rhetoric of fear that was used prior to invading Iraq.

    The sad thing is. Iran was a bigger threat to use pre and post 9/11 than Iraq ever was. But you idiots choose to destroy your credibility on Iraq.

    For some reason you get sexual gratification from being afraid, or making others afraid. Perhaps you should spend more time in S&M clubs and less itme with politics?

  100. 100.

    Steve

    April 19, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    If, after all this advance warning, Iran gets a nuke in the coming decade and does something horrible with it, we’re all going to owe Neville Chamberlain an apology.

    Heh. Sounds like you need to read this before your rhetoric exceeds all reasonable bounds. I really have to rub my eyes and look again when someone tries to claim Iran has actually given us MORE warning of their Hitler-like intentions than Hitler did by, you know, actually invading neighboring countries!

  101. 101.

    The Sanity Inspector

    April 19, 2006 at 1:47 pm

    It doesn’t matter: Leftists would never have given their assent to any American military action against anyone anywhere. I’ve got the pictures to prove it. Had Saddam managed to weasel through and reconstitute his nuke program, the Left’s non-reaction would be the same as it is now re Iran’s.

  102. 102.

    Steve

    April 19, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    You must have quite the wide-angle lens to take pictures of the entire political left. I’m sure you wouldn’t just point to a few extremists and claim that they speak for the entire Democratic Party, would you?

    Perhaps your selective memory forgets the time when Bill Clinton wanted to send troops to stop the genocide in Bosnia, and “Leftists” like George Bush and Sean Hannity started wringing their hands over the lack of an exit strategy and all the troops who would come home in body bags.

  103. 103.

    capelza

    April 19, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    Oh Sanity Inspector…are you frakin’ serious? These pictures “prove” the MONOLITHIC LEFT would be against military action anywhere. You are completely full of shit.

    Afghanistan had wide spread support in the whole country. Iraq, no, because it was STUPID. You guys were warned, we told you, you didn’t listen, and now you want to kill the messenger. “It’s the Left’s fault, they MADE us start this stupid war…blame them, not us!”

  104. 104.

    jaime

    April 19, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    That’s one reason why Jews and Christians haven’t formed terror groups around the world

    Terrorism is a tactic of last resort. Why strap bombs to our chest to kill our enemies when we have F-16’s that can do it for us.

  105. 105.

    gratefulcub

    April 19, 2006 at 2:30 pm

    Sanity Inspector,

    Good v Evil is not an argument. If we look at the world through the ‘we good they evil’ lens, then everything we do is justified. There is no action we couldn’t consider moral.

    Nuclear annihilation of Iran is justified if we are good fighting evil, which is all things Iranian. Palestinian suicide bombings are moral and just if they are seen as good Palestinians fighting evil jews.

    The problem is not religious fanaticism. It is any fanaticism that leads a group to believe that they are good, while another group is evil. That fanaticism can come from nationalism as well as religion.

    If you truly believe you are part of a group that is inherently good fighting evil, morality becomes moot. There is no immoral act in a fight against evil, the ends always justify the means.

  106. 106.

    gratefulcub

    April 19, 2006 at 2:38 pm

    Leftists would never have given their assent to any American military action against anyone anywhere. I’ve got the pictures to prove it.

    I am going to assume that was tongue in cheek. Right?

    Or, I could show a picture of Duke Cunningham and say “All Republicans are crooks.”

    An audio of Rush Limbaugh railing on and on about how all drug users should get life in prison and say “All republicans are egomaniacal hypocrites.”

    Stereotyping the entire ‘LEFT’ as appeasement loving stoned hippies is like believing in your own inherent goodness and your enemy’s overwhelming evil doerness.

  107. 107.

    The Other Steve

    April 19, 2006 at 5:07 pm

    I think Sanity Inspector is a spoof

  108. 108.

    Perry Como

    April 19, 2006 at 5:27 pm

    I just found the perfect chair for the 101st fighting keyboardists.

  109. 109.

    The Other Steve

    April 20, 2006 at 9:23 am

    My god that chair has a high center of gravity.

  110. 110.

    ppGaz

    April 20, 2006 at 11:14 am

    For some reason you get sexual gratification from being afraid

    He can do that?

    Another damned thing I missed out on.

  111. 111.

    The Other Steve

    April 20, 2006 at 11:22 am

    It’s all about sex with Republicans

  112. 112.

    ppGaz

    April 20, 2006 at 11:39 am

    It’s all about sex with Republicans

    Eeewwww ……

  113. 113.

    Rome Again

    April 21, 2006 at 1:45 am

    “Unless you happen to be a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite, these Biblical passages simply do not apply to you

    .

    And all these are Serpent Seed, aka Nephilim.

    The Good vs. Evil thing only has to do with the seed of Lucifer and the seed of Adam. Cain was not Adam’s son.

    Someone asked how can I have this in my genealogy, Herod was one of my ancestors, and he was a descendant of Esau who married into the lineage of Ishmael, a serpent seed; also, my Egpytian pharoah ancestors were serpent seed as well.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - beckya57 - Copper Canyon, Mexico, April 2025
Image by beckya57 (7/31/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • WaterGirl on On The Road – dmkingto – SF Bay Area Scenes (Jul 9, 2025 @ 7:02pm)
  • JWR on Open Thread: Good for Rep. Jeffries (Jul 9, 2025 @ 7:00pm)
  • Gvg on Open Thread: Good for Rep. Jeffries (Jul 9, 2025 @ 7:00pm)
  • Omnes Omnibus on Open Thread: Good for Rep. Jeffries (Jul 9, 2025 @ 6:57pm)
  • Eolirin on Open Thread: Good for Rep. Jeffries (Jul 9, 2025 @ 6:55pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!