They have plenty of patience. They have plenty of young men willing to die. But they actually fear and respect Bush. They consider Bush an aberration in US politics (a mistake). They are laying low, avoiding too much direct conflict, no new attacks on the U.S., waiting for the next Clinton-type. And in the mean while are using the time to get the one thing they don’t have… nukes.

Policy on Iran nukes seems to be off-target

April 16, 2006

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."

CONTINUED...

taking everybody else down too.  That would show the sumbitch.

And of course, because people are perfectly logical, nobody else looking for a shortcut to Paradise, or 15 minutes of fame, would do the same thing either.

It's certainly worth the emotional certainty and satisfaction to advocate a policy that's not going to hurt any of YOUR relatives...

So, yeah, let's invade Iran.  We don't have our hands full in Iraq.  Let's invade Iran, and just keep going until we hit Shanghai.   That should make for very entertaining headlines.   After all, entertainment is the primary function of politics.

OK, Mr. Logic Sprocket....Let me explain him to you.

IT WAS AN ANALOGOUS PARODY!!! It wasn't even focused on how to stop the hijacker.

The writer never suggested invading Iran. I never did either.

The writer was simply pointing out that waiting till tomorrow to do something has not worked.

Did you even READ the article? *sigh*

ps. might I suggest a Thesaurus for some substitutes to your over use of the word "logic"?

This essay by Amir Taheri argues that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent.  Not necessrily as a deterrent to a US-led invasion whose objective is regieme change in Tehran, but as a deterrent to US tactical nuclear weapons use as a US means to forestall Iranian-led Islamic Fundamentalist aggression in the Middle East.

I'd have to wonder about Taheri's implicit asumption that the US would in fact use tactical nuclear weapons if it came down to an active and prolonged shooting war against Iran.

Also, I'd have to wonder about the source itself.  Taheri has been a cheerleader [to put it mildly] for the US war against Iraq.  Likwise, he appears regularly in TheNewYorkPost, not the most reliable source of news or opinons or analysis on pretty much any important subject you'd care to mention.  [In fairness to Taheri, he has appeared in more responsible places like TNYTimes and the WSJournal].  Still, I gotta wonder.

"waiting till tomorrow to do something has not worked..."  

Logically, then, we should do something today, and presumably, it wouldn't matter so much what we did...Pardon me if it sounds like your writer sounds like he finds panic emotionally satisfying.   We are sorry, but we do not.

Iran's president is a fundamentalist nut job, just like Bush. They'll both be gone in a few years. We have much bigger threats to worry about than Iran.

they aren't needed.  PGMs do the job much more effectively.

They'd only be used in really heavy duty bunker busters.  Note the USAF used conventional weapons to go after Saddam many stories below ground.

Delivery systems are the big issue.  How are they gonna put nukes on a US force?  For all the SCUDs Saddam fired in Gulf 1, only a couple hit anything, and that was dumb luck.

In the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" about 20 minutes from the end, the British have occupied Damascus but a group of Arabs inspired by Lawrence have also managed to occupy part of the town.  They make a muck of things. [Surprise?!] There is a scence where one of the aides to British General Allenby implores Allenby to do something about the deteriorating situation.  Allenby, played by Jack Hawkins, tells his aide that sometimes doing nothing is the best course. And promptly returns to practicing his fly-fishing cast [does POTUS not also fly-fish?].

Would be that we could live in such relaxed times!

and it has less to do with a culture being relaxed, and more with being wise...

Doing nothing is OFTEN the best course of action - or at least not doing the obvious.   If you're a fly in a spider's web, struggling is the obvious course, and lethal.   So what can you do in that situation?  Evolve a brain?  Forge a diplomatic initiative with the wasps who will come attack the spider?   I dunno, but no obvious course is going to help.

Doing nothing conserves resources while it allows a situation to develop, and sometimes resolve itself - it often allows enemies to pick fights among themselves, or to emotionally exhaust themselves.  Patience requires a certain acceptance, or discipline, or understanding that things CAN get worse.

-- Modified on 4/19/2006 6:07:10 PM

Yeah, Taheri's point that the US would have to use tactical nuclear weapons seemed so wrong as to even be beyond a need to comment.  Can it be deliberate scare-mongering? If the Iranians continue their tactic of massed human wave attacks [as they did in the Iran-Iraq War] the amount of human devestation wrecked by conventional weapons/PGMs would i think rival that of trench warfare in WWI.

I mean, cluster bombs, concussion bombs [which are not suppossed to be used in an anti-personnel role], fuel-air explosives, etc...  I wonder, does Iran folow the US order of battle [with lots of large and heavy divisions, often highly mechanized] which would provide the "target-rich environment" we've come to know, but not possibly love?

And of course, the US will no doubt control the skies, allowing stand off attcks with impunity.

it often sends vibrations through the web, causing the spider to come and investigate...  hummmmm

hobby recently Spock?

and the real advantage of having them, is having them.  Not knowing what the other party really, will do.  A game of bluff.  or not.  But with the current clown, who is not good with games, a dangerous situation.

-- Modified on 4/19/2006 10:52:39 PM

-- Modified on 4/19/2006 10:53:22 PM

if they are logical, they are much more worried about PGMs.

Accuracy is not the only problem - maintenance of a delivery system is expensive and often obvious.  Anything that interrupts the delivery system will make the warhead useless.  PGMs can usually use smaller delivery systems simply because they make much less mess.

Bluffing works 2 ways, and 50% (will they or won't they) is not the sort of odds we like.  The usual plan is to acquire some advantage that changes the odds significantly, without the enemy's knowledge.

consumption.   Perhaps they are truly scared that Dubya will come after them.

While it's not a good idea to have more nuclear material out there, we also have to keep foreseeable consequences in mind.   As of this writing, it seems likely that that Russians and PRC would support the Iranians just to keep some sort of balance in that sector of the world; and of course the Russians should try to take advantage of any turmoil to increase their influence in Iran.

I doubt the Iranians are so stupid as to take the US on directly, or try an attack like they did on Saddam - of course we could shred them even without putting any aircraft into the sky - ground forces alone could make them into masses of hamburger.

But if we were in the position of invading Iran, that's another story - this has the terrain of Afghanistan, but none of their political divisions; and invasions have a tendency to bring out the nationalist in anybody.

border is a really good delivery system... requiring only an oil chanage about every 5000 miles or so.... and of course it runs on unleaded....

And I agree, anything that interrupts the delivery system (ie, border patrols) renders the warhead less than effective.  

But then again, according to you, we have absolutely nothing to fear from completely unguarded and open borders...?  right?  riiiight.....  

How is the hobbying going.....  and Mister Sprocket, what's under that alias....   tidy whities or boxers or  what?!

-- Modified on 4/20/2006 8:37:26 PM

that is addressed to the international community as well...  the sort of if.... then.... concept.  By putting it out there, he may be hoping that it forestalls any effort to do anything to Iran.  

Given our "history" with Iran, I would also agree that an invasion by the US would galvanize the Iranians in a way that nothing else could to resist to the last man, woman and child.  They still remember the Shah... and our support of him (read  SAVAK, the secret police created under the guidance of the CIA and Israel).

AND ALSO defense in depth - starting with trying to keep track of and minimize both the materials and the people with the inclination to do these sort of things, and also internal domestic policing - the problem is deciding how much of the 4th & 5th amendments we want to compromise for this, and the reality is that nuclear fear is politically much easier to sell than civil rights...

Once upon a time, it was possible to drive a vehicle across the border (as opposed to a POE) and think you might not be intercepted.   By & large, those days are gone - and of course, part of our devil's pact with the Mexicans (less the Canadians) that we will accept some of their shit if they carry some of our water, by harassing illegals, mostly 3rd country nationals, who are transiting their country - even some of their own "assistance" groups has the effect of discouraging smugglers - at least those who aren't hooked into the local network....

But, according to you, we have no need to think about what we are doing, or read posts before shooting off our mouth, do we?  Much more interesting to pursue irrelevancies, like somebody's sexual habits...because fear is the point - it's so exciting, it makes you feel so good.

Sorry, I'm not into panic.   I find it a complete waste of time, and boring.

You are kidding right?  We cannot even keep drunk drivers off the road.  Please.  What we can and cannot do really!

whether somebody else is wearing boxers or briefs...

But "transportation security" generally refers to traffic crossing our borders, like containers, etc...but you wouldn't know that.

it involves what is shipped, how it is shipped, and the controls and conditions necessary for shipment, but then again, I usually HIRE expertise when needed for this stuff... so I don't have to bother.  

But according to you, We (read U.S.) should not be able to control who or what crosses our borders... so, YOU wouldn't know that.

Personally I think you wear Briefs... as you seem to be the uptight, whity tidy type.... Me, boxers, as I like to let the boys breathe! a more relaxed approach to life.

-- Modified on 4/21/2006 10:01:14 AM

-- Modified on 4/21/2006 10:05:08 AM

but we really don't give a rat's ass about your skivvies, or how they may or may not affect your character.

So here you are arguing that we do not believe in controlling borders, solely because we question your prescription, ie, shit on Hispanics because you're too fucking dumb to realize how fucking dumb you are, ie, that there may be a goddamned good reason for the situation that you would not necessarily learn from standing in line at the INS...

So why don't you HIRE some expertise, ie., send us money, and sit down and shut up?  You know, do something you're actually good at?

we're gonna get the truant officer to get your sad ass back into class.

And while you are at it, count the # of abusive and racial epithets used per post.  I give.... you win, on all accounts.

You usually become most abusive - when any member of this discussion group (myself or others) - points out the "illogic," fallibility, or an error in your post.  And no, I don't keep score, but I have found that an emotional outbreak usually looses an argument, counselor, more so than illogic or faulty reasoning.  a life lesson that I am still learning and you seem only to vaguely be aware of.... go figure.

With respect to faulty reasoning, rarely, if ever, did the character that you have chosen to name yourself after resort to childish, obscene and or abusive language when speaking with others.

customer, and speak in terms they are most likely to understand.

However, not all units can receive or process effectively, and are unable to understand in any case.   Some will produce random and unreliable information, like about flights to Miami; although this sort of information can be generated with the specific intent to avoid embarrassment.

We are still trying to determine exactly what sort of logic program you are using, and precisely what its defects are.    We suspect a simple virus, hispanophobia, which results in total panic whenever a small brown person is envisioned, always of course with a big sombrero...

Relax, they mean you no harm.  True, they are often underinsured, and may sometimes back their pickup into you - but they will generally not burn crosses, or even go to the hospital (excepting the  ER, and of course that's their fault for being injured on the job, and we know you never buy lettuce...).  We realize that they talk funny, and should probably be lynched for that, but lynching   parties do upset the ladies...

Fer what it's worth, I think it's probably some hugh, crude aggregate cultural difference.

Doing nothing smacks of the [for want of  better woid] passivity in the face of events oft associated with Eastern cultures.

"Doing something" [even when it's half-assed, probably makes things worse, and totally ineffective] is a mindset associate with the WEST, where man is expected to use his rational [Ha Ha] intellect {Ho Ho], if not to master events, at least to try to shape them in a favorable manner.

But you know something is fundamentally wrong here when social scientists invent a concept  -- iatrogenic intervention -- to describe the situation which occurs when action intended to remedy a problems actually makes it worse.

I didn't make the point, you did.

And you are not desearving of my revealing and I'm not required to reveal, every one of my thoughts to you.

-- Modified on 4/22/2006 11:56:03 PM

I think it;s from "Julius Caesar,"  re the evil that men do lives on afer them?

What about the stupidity that men do?

the cultural difference only arises when one starts getting philosophical about the usefulness of action per se.

It's much simpler - you just define your objective, and figure out if the the action gets you closer or farther.   The default in a tie should be to conserve resources.  The philosophy comes in defining your objective and limits, but, based on our experience, we assume that is not a problem.

In fairness, it's not just conserving resources; but if you are in a conflict situation, the less you do, the less visible you are, which is very important.   The primary value of "doing something" for its own sake is political, ie where you gain points by nagging your co-workers, or pretending you know what you are doing.  That's a pathetic situation we have little interest in.

Doing something for its own sake does tend to force a situation, and it often results in serious losses to the thoughtless actor, thus putting them out of competition.  

So we like impatient people - on the other side of any conflict.

you're just using bandwidth, without a point?

We think you're more than a little edgy here.   We simply asked for clarification, and you somehow think this involves all your thoughts.

Who are we to say? depending on your intellectual capacity, maybe it does.

The question is whether the US can, will, or should allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Thusfar, there has been a great deal of restraint on our part while trying to let diplomacy work its course. Ultimately, there is a point at which we will have to act with or without the international community.   Invariably, Israel WILL act if nothing is done by the US or the the United Nations. With the rhetoric coming out of Iran's president, who could blame them?  It appears that the UN is likely to be spineless and do nothing (as usual).  Every time Iran's president opens his mouth, the price of oil shoots up on commodities speculation.  Not good for us, but great for all of the oil producing countries.  Diplomacy needs to be given a chance, however, the usual suspects in the international community are on the wrong side of the equation on this one and that will keep the security council from doing anything other than non binding resolutions.
    It would be nice for the visionary leaders of the "loyal" opposition party to come out with some plan that they could get behind.  The Democratic party in an election year has subordinated national interests to regaining power.  They are going to great pains to avoid saying anything that could be perceived as a firm policy with regards to Iran.  The paradox is that if Iran senses division on the part of the United States, the chances for a diplomatic resolution are greatly reduced.  If both sides of the aisle are united in both rhetoric and policy, diplomacy has a much better chance of succeeding.

we have to assume you have no facts or reasoning to share.

you really don't need to be shy - at least I don't know of any reason you should.

Perhaps you have a reason for not explaining yourself.

to your heart's content.

BTW, they were thoughts not feelings. It is very difficult to debate "feelings", at least for most people. But then again, you seem to have little trouble with it.

sharing your feelings.

Funny thing, I can't find my use of the word a "point".

Oh well, I'll just be standing over here, watching you debate the wall.

but that would be for the Dept of Tough Shit.

You pride yourself on the use of "logic", but your forte is the assignment of non sequitur statements, to which you self respond. It's sort of like watching a circle jerk.

Logically because you can't do it yourself?

We wouldn't know, and must guess.   We presume that if you had any logical thoughts, you'd offer them.

What are some of your other of your logical traits?

[slaps forehead]  Now why would I ask you?  It's not like you'd know.