After revealing that Iran has been secretly building a nuclear facility for a year, President Obama warned Iran it was facing its last chance. He said, “Iran’s leaders must now choose — they can live up to their responsibilities and achieve integration with the community of nations. Or they will face increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people.”
embedded by Embedded Video
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
This is their last chance before:
The rhetoric employed actually becomes slightly unpleasant.
That oughta do it.
Perhaps Obama should indicate that unless they quit spiiting on his outstretched hand that he will begin referring to them using the same terms he does for Republicans. They will be quaking in their burquas, shaking in their bernooses, fracturing their Farsi.
Does this remind you of that scene in Ghostbusters, where Ray steps up to the evil god and informs her that he is duly authorized by the city, county, and state of New York to tell her to leave at once?
Or is it like those offers in the mail that warn you this is your LAST chance to take advantage of this wonderful offer or else you will never hear from them again! Until next week.
Maybe Obama should say he is considering NOT prosecuting our intelligence agencies unless Iran starts being nice. And say, isn’t it funny this came out right after that prosecution started being discussed?
I’m sorry, the Python said it all back when it was still funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs
Oh no! Not the dreaded “increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people.”
Obama is still emitting Green gases. He sounds like a High School Class President boasting of his appearance at a Model UN meeting. This is sad, pathetic even. Instead of leading with Iran he runs through the embarrassing laundry list of self congratulation over nothing first. The warning to Iran is therefor all the more obviously empty. As I said on the last thread, my expectation is that we will eventually find evidence that the administration was working with Iran to conceal the evidence of their secret program. Obama panicked and ran to Brown and Sarkozy for cover when the press in Vienna got wind of what he had already known for months.
Well, hell. We can now just quit worrying about the rest of the world: he’s just solved every problem out there without breaking a sweat.
Sarcozy isnt so impressed.
This is the most worrisome series of acts by an American President since Carter and the Shah. It will not end well.
He operates behind an impenetrable shield against reality. I think he really believes that KimJongIl or Acmedjihad care a fig for the effects of sanctions on their people. This level of denial must take tremendous effort.
Or, these actions are directed toward a goal other than that spoken.
If the Iranian regime agreed to take the remaining Gitmo prisoners off of Obama’s hands in exchange for a hands-off policy regarding their nuclear ambitions, I seriously believe he would think it a shrewd move.
“Or they will face increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people.”
—
I’m sure the Mullahs care deeply about “opportunity for their own people.”
…about as much as that guy with the upturned snout cares about us.
herb, it wouldn’t surprise me if Sarcozy at some point went unilateral. (Bet the mullahs wouldn’t see that coming.)
That picture reminds me of Mussolini standing on the balcony bathing the applause of his fascist followers. It is the attitude I find most disturbing- as if he has actually done something. His inclination to fascism is a secondary concern but just as real.
SpeakEasy: “His inclination to fascism is a secondary concern but just as real.”
Its the core of his belief system. And the core of my fear of the results of this regime. Go read Goldberg.
“Hans Brix! You’re busting my bars!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0hk9vaqWUg
On my blog I have The Pic of The Day.
In the case of Obama, the problem is that we are doing the lookup the wrong way. Yesterday I was having a conversation with a person who remarked how curious it was that in a dictionary object consisting of key, value pairs, the variable was the key. But of course it follows: you can get values by key, but you can’t get keys by value. Once you have the key, then the value is given. The value is directly associated and the joined at the hip with the key. You pass the key as a variable and retrieve the value.
Take the telephone directory. We can lookup a telephone number if we know the name + address field, but we can’t lookup the telephone number (in a regular directory) and find the name. In Obama’s case we hear the words and are surprised by the actions that correspond to them. The problem is that he’s using a different dictionary, one that I think is used by 25-30% of the population. In that dictionary object, the key, value pairs are different.
We want the value — which is to solve Iran — and but the discourse is now being conducted with different dictionaries. The problem isn’t the speaker (who in this case is Obama). The problem is the dictionary. It’s possible that there is no value corresponding to the key “ultimatum” or “action”. It may even map as follows: (“ultimatum, “a preface to another ultimatum”), which can go on forever.
I digress in order to make the point that the current malaise (if I can use a Carter word) won’t be solved by unelecting Obama. Somehow a large part of the country is using a dictionary of nonsense; it has to be persuaded to amend its dictionary object; to change the collections contained in its vocabulary, otherwise it will be irremediable gibberish. This crazy, politically correct dictionary has been in use for some time and many people can only think using its definitions. But persuading people to change it will be very hard. Only they can make the change for we are not going to browbeat millions into using our preferred table of definitions. Perhaps Orwell was right. The key to groupthink is to create a language in which no real thought other than obedience to fantasy can be expressed. And now Newspeak is in widespread use. Even at the UN.
The important implication of this is that the current crisis has deep political and cultural roots. There’s no quick fix and it’s useless to try for one. It will be a long slog and in the end, it may be a trudge over the cliff.
How strange it is that some of the 10 commandments had to do with dictionaries and speech: “thou shalt not bear false witness”, “though shalt not put strange gods before Me”. The ancient lawgivers know something we’ve forgotten: fantasy kills.
I read somewhere last night that, in Hussein’s first seven sentences addressing the UN, the word “I” was either the subject or direct object in five of them.
From Wikipedia:
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy.”[1]
The narcissist is described as turning inward for gratification rather than depending on others and as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige.[2] Narcissistic personality disorder is closely linked to self-centeredness. It is also colloquially referred to as “the God complex.”
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:[1]
1–Has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2–Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love (megalomania)
3–Believes they are “special” and can only be understood by, or should associate with, people (or institutions) who are also “special” or of high status
4–Requires excessive admiration
5–Has a sense of entitlement
6–Is interpersonally exploitative
7–Lacks empathy
8–Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9–Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitude
I give Hussein an easy 5/9 and a strong ‘possible’ on 2 more.
How can you bear false witness when one man’s jihadist is another man’s freedom fighter?
Increasingly it seems to me that we need to do something about the Left who put Obama in power and who are perfectly willing to turn America into the United States of Russia at the same time we do something about the Abomination who is our President.
I’m just not sure what that “something” would consist of, if we don’t want to start tossing around the word “genocide”. Cambodian relocation and reprogramming camps? If someone voted for Obama then they are adjudged to be guilty of treason and assigned to spend some time in a camp in Texas for an attitude adjustment. And they have to walk to get there, so that it would become a Yellow Rose Death Stroll. Remember the Alamo.
Think of it as crime-ridden and uninhabitable low income public housing, a matter of theory not exactly matching dynamics.
Iran can do what Omamba said (if they can figure out what THAT was), or they can atom-bomb anybody that is a nuisance. Their choice.
wretchard,
he’s using a different dictionary
Everyone uses a slightly unique dictionary based on their family, education and occupation. The wonder is that there is sufficient commonality that most of the time we can communicate. When you cannot understand someone or get it wildly wrong then there are things to check. First, is are they using a special dictionary shared with their group (understandable) or are they only talking to themselves (possible insanity)? Secondly, is the miscommunication accidental or deliberate?
For the Democrats their dictionaries are drawn from their core support groups. Two of their biggest sources of support are lawyers and creative media. For lawyers negotiations translate as “billable hours.” They happen after an event has already created damages, or to create a contract for a mutually agreed upon goal. The suggestion that they must be brought to a resolution because something bad might happen in the future does not translate for them. For the media conflict and negotiation are plot devices to be sustained. I can see them sitting around a table brainstorming a show called “The Ultimate Ultimatum.”
My wife forced me to buy some glasses, tri-focals. Now when I read I always have my head up like Ohumble. Gets tough on the neck after a while.
We had a very similar situation for most of the Western world prior to WWII. Somehow the dictionary had been changed by the blood letting in Flanders fields and most of the world wasn’t interested in protecting themselves or projecting power until after Pearl Harbor in the US’s case.
For a few seconds after 9/11 we turned the page in the dictionary. It appears that 9/11 wasn’t a big enough event to clear the registers and recalibrate the system. Al Quida had planned to fly an airliner into the Eiffel Tower if I remember correctly. Would nuking Paris be enough to reset the system; how about San Fransisco?
I am very much afraid that events of that scale will be what it takes to clear the collective heads of those on the left side of the page world wide or maybe not. They may just be willing to surrender rather than protect themselves and their white wine and Brie cheese.
Obama is the symptom of a mental disease (intelectuial infection) and for what it is worth so was Princes Di. I have called it sociopathic or cultural narcacisim or maybe it is cultural self loathing. Somebody jump in here!
In the US it is about 25% of the population. Everyone in Western Europe appears to be infected. Others symptoms include the belief in man caused global warming, believing that we should, as a policy, have a below replacement birth rate, and a multitude of others. We all know what they are.
Anyone want to venture if there will ever be a reset mechanism?
What we need is another National Intelligence Estimate, one telling us that the Iranian regime is lying about its nuclear capabilities and ambitions. The last estimate said the Bush administration was lying about the Iranian nuclear program, that in fact Iran had stopped the program in 2003 and kept it afterwards inactive.
Seems to me the problem is one of simply massaging the message to conform with our wishes. No one is suggesting that we redefine the meaning of verity or truth. We can all have our own way. Let’s simply introduce a U.N. resolution resolving to work towards a resolution. Maybe Khadafy could dictate. (Although, the tricky part will be getting reliable translators.)
sirius_sir,
massaging the message
You are getting warm. For some people in the Process profession having the different parties using incompatible dictionaries is a feature and not a bug. They define success as having everyone leave the 5 star hotel happy with a beautiful piece of paper. They do not worry about thise same people getting angry when they discover that others do not think the agreement means what they do. In the opinion of the professional cynic the other parties are going to find something to be unhappy about later anyway so it really doesn’t matter what they get upset about. If they are happy on the day you need them for a photo shoot then that will do.
The same attitude can be seen in school administrators who just want the parent happy on graduation day and who really don’t care about what anyone will think in the future about the student’s lack of education. For a different job I had a boss who told me to do something wrong, copyright infringement in a University of Chicago duplicating office I managed, because it would make some faculty happy and by the time anyone important complained, “We would both be gone.” I left first.
I have come to believe that aside from those who pick a political franchise because of brand, there is a fundamentally different thought structure between left and right politics as there are left and right hemispheres. I think Whiskey gets close to this with his battle of the sexes rants. But the bottom line is there are different dictionaries that follow these spheres and their leaders might as well talk over one another since “reaching out” is utterly futile when one side appears to run business and the military while the other controls communication (media and education). And the left is winning because it appeals to the fems who run our schools and then there are those sheep who will follow to “get-along” with expectations of being rewarded and there are so many others who have been spoon fed a point of view for so long critical thinking is impossible. This ends with tyranny when only men have the backbone to fight for liberty.
OK, what I don’t get is that there is all of this talk about The Chicago Way and Alinsky Radicalism and about the White House Chief of Staff allegedly blackmailing people on the domestic front, and then there is the seeming fear of one’s own reflection on the foreign policy front. We have had the “we need to punch back twice as hard” and the alleged arm twisting of Chrysler bondholders on the domestic front, and all of this on the international front.
I am wondering about what kind of Chicago Way of politics are we talking about? Are we talking the fictional Malone-from-the-Untouchables-fighting-Al-Capone Chicago Way, or are we talking the real life “if you won’t play ball, we won’t collect your garbage” kind of Chicago Way? What may be hard ball in Cook County may not even make the big leagues in DC (think the stalled Health Care plan) or may not even make it into the stadium in the world arena.
I mean are we going to get tough on Iran by suggesting that their garbage will not get collected on schedule or that their street won’t get plowed when it snows? That level of pressure is meaningful to a tenement landlord but it is pretty meaningless when dealing with totalitarian dictators. Is this what is happening here?
Others will suggest this is by design, but I still adhere to Napolean’s dictum to not attribute to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence, and I am more willing to believe in inexperience than in a Manchurian Candidate situation.
@ #19 Docbill : “it appears that 9/11 wasn’t a big enough event to clear the registers …”
Lamentably, that is true – but because it wasn’t enough, a bigger shock inevitably awaits us. The longer we wait, uncleared, and inactive, the bigger it will unavoidably be.
I think a nuke in San Francisco might be enough; Paris – maybe not!
Life imitates art:
Kim Jong-Il: Hans Brix? Oh, no.
KJI: Oh, herro, great to see you again, Hans.
Hans Blix: Mr. II, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today,and your guards won’t let me into certain areas.
KJI: Hans, Hans, Hans. We’ve been through this a dozen times.
I don’t have any weapons of mass destruction, okay, Hans?
HB: Then let me look around so I can ease the U.N.’s collective mind.
KJI: Hans, you’re breaking my barrs here. Hans, you’re breaking my barrs.
HB: I’m sorry, but the U.N. must be firm with you.
Let me see your whole palace or else.
KJI: Or else what?
HB: Or else we will be very,very angry with you. And we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b49Iwfp8U-U
Oops – sorry for missing prior reference to Team America
Obama’s gonna hold his breath.
Then he’ll offer ‘em a bribe to say they’re really peaceful and, if they say it, he’ll proclaim “Peace in our time.”
Obama is just emitting gas bag at the UN.
Paul Milenkovic writes:
Others will suggest this is by design, but I still adhere to Napolean’s dictum to not attribute to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence, and I am more willing to believe in inexperience than in a Manchurian Candidate situation.
If inexperience leads to the same behavior that would be exhibited by a “Manchurian candidate,” does it really matter?
If your children are dead from arsenic poisoning, the important thing is that they are dead. Whether the person who fed them the arsenic did so through malice or stupidly mistaking the arsenic jar for table salt is merely a detail. The important thing is that the children are dead. All other considerations pale in significance.
I don’t really care about Mr. Obama’s motives–I care about the results he produces. Thus far–I am not impressed. When it comes to protecting the country (and yes–contrary to popular belief, that is the primary job of the POTUS) I would rather have a competent scoundrel rather than an incompetent saint at the wheel.
What I fear about Mr. Obama is that we have the worst of all worlds–an incompetent scoundrel.
‘Using the wrong dictionary’
Let’s remember that this isn’t the first time. The entire history of the last century features urban-led democracies repeatedly falling under the spell of the very similar fantasies, and getting each time sucker-punched and then dragged through ghastly wars as a result.
Tcobb,
What I fear about Mr. Obama is that we have the worst of all worlds–an incompetent scoundrel.
That raises an interesting question. Should we prefer that our scoundrels be competent or not?
There is an old joke in which a businessman is describing the government as stupid, slothful, ignorant, corrupt and incompetent at doing any of the things it claims it intends to do. His partner listens and then pats him on the shoulder, “Harry, thank God for that.”
“Life imitates art:”
Here here. I was looking for the Bugs Bunny, Yosemite Sam “I dare you to cross this line” bit.
Wretchard, yes, but, why are we taking a Iranian disclosure as a tip point when we already knew about these sites and know they are playing us??? 2nd, if we ain’t got no target yet, then we ain’t got no target to destroy. We/us are in our spot with the Barrett, but we only have one mag and will be “spotted” and hunted by the UN when we do it. Patience, patience; target, target.
It is traditionally said that there are four kinds of officers (or soldiers or policeman or whatever):
1. The competent and energetic, who are the best of the lot,
2. The competent and lazy, who do little good,
3. The incompetent and lazy who do little harm, and
4. The incompetent and energetic, who are the great danger.
I think we see all these types in action in Washington, among other places, but the mix varies from time to time.
That raises an interesting question. Should we prefer that our scoundrels be competent or not?
Good point LOTM, and in answer to your question I give you this, my own, double standard: when it comes to domestic affairs, I prefer that they be incompetent. When it comes down to national security, I want the most competent and meanest son of a bitch we can get hold of.
When it gets down to it, the international arena is much like a dog fight. Wolves, pit-bulls, and Mastiffs fight. And all we have right now is a preening little Chihuahua to put into the ring.
God help us all.
Anny Mouse,
Here you go, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qxhLStdrn8
For the last thread I was looking for the clip from Die Hard with the sap Ellis “negotiating” with Gruber as McClane tries to warn him. A lesson in a can.
erc rodson,
That was Fredrick the Great’s management paradigm. There was an article about it in Naval Institute Proceedings may years ago.
Most troops were lazy slugs in Fred’s opinion but that was OK if they feared his officers. The officers should be the smart and ambitious ones. Every organization can have one guy who wants to be lazy and dull. In F the G’s modest opinion that was Fred only he had to stay up late working hard worrying about the ambitious stupid guy. In modern naval parlance that is the Petty Officer 2nd class who tries to fix the nuclear power plant on his own just to impress the Chief. That is the guy who kills people.
Tcobb,
If they are on the side of the US Constitution they are not scoundrels.
@Wretchard Re Dictionary Comment:
Bingo!
See Confucius’ Analects, Book 13, Verse 3 on the Rectification of Names.
Plenty of literature on the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, too. (Aside: I wonder if you have read Paul Graham on ‘Blub’?).
I’m afraid our very own Rectification of Names isn’t going to occur until after the barbarians at the gate have had their ways with a lot more of us.
A rhetorical question I’ve asked elsewhere: Which is more dangerous, a clever Marxist or a foolish Marxist?
For those who may not know about the Barrett that EdGi is talking about.
Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle
Tcobb,
If they are on the side of the US Constitution they are not scoundrels.
Let’s look at a case in point. Bill Clinton to be specific. I did not like him, but I never thought for a moment that he was anything ever than, in your words, “on the side of the US Constitution.” At the same time, he was a scoundrel.
Or then again, perhaps our definitions of “scoundrel” don’t properly intersect.
Thanks LoTM. Great stuff!
“A dictionary of nonsense” is perfect. Iran builds nukes, it lies, it represses its own people after a rigged election, it denies the holocaust, it interferes with neighboring projects to bring self-government and liberate oppressed peoples – and yet the Left, these Communists, this scum, cannot see that when it speaks it says Nothing, Nothing, Nothing. all it sees is the domestic political Enemy, and these bloviating egotism, these masters of avoid self-reflection, never think – why should i think this way?
Just one of a hundred reasons i think the Final Phase people who argue that the plan is a massive first strike are correct. i thought it was subversion all the way, but maybe they’re right.
Tcobb,
When Clinton pursued external policies that I disagreed with but which were still constitutional he was not, within a definition I am willing to share with you, a scoundrel. He was other things maybe such as naive about the gathering threats and way to solicitous of Arafat. His support of Aristide was indefensible, given that the man was, to use a technical term, nuts. When he took money from the Chinese government in return for allowing Loral to export critical weapons technology then he was a scoundrel. We are reaching for something to disagree on here I think. The troops are OK. When they fight on our side they may be rough but as long as they stay within the shelter of the UCMJ they are never scoundrels.
Clinton’s personal conduct was that of a scoundrel.
Annoy Mouse,
My pleasure.
Now if anybody can find that Die Hard clip it would be perfect.
rickl:
A rhetorical question I’ve asked elsewhere: Which is more dangerous, a clever Marxist or a foolish Marxist?
Perhaps you are looking at it the wrong way. Substitute “rattlesnake” for Marxist. Whether they are clever or foolish is irrelevant, they are rattlesnakes, and the bite from the clever ones is just as toxic as the bite from the foolish ones.
LOTM
We are reaching for something to disagree on here I think.
–SIGH– perhaps so LOTM, perhaps so. I think your reach spans further than mine.
The Iranians have turned a relative simple issue into a Gordian Knot for the big Zero. Now, the big 0 can either act like Alexander and cut the knot – or grovel, issue vague threats, and cover his own @ss with various excuses.
The Iranian’s know they have got him by the balls and are slowly twisting. The big 0 will wince in pain while trying to talk his way out of the situation. The big 0 has no will to fight. Worse, the advisers to the big 0 see the actual problem and will advise him that it’s too late to stop Iran. The big 0 will use that as a further excuse to do nothing or do something very negative (deny Israel the opportunity to strike).
The obvious problem with Iran having nuclear weapons is the very real threat of closing the Straits, economic blackmail, wiping Israel off the map and possibly attacking the Green Zone in Iraq.
I really don’t see anything positive coming out of DC until the big 0 is out of office. In fact, the real problem lies with the big 0 himself. He is not fit for the position he now occupies. He is too weak and indecisive. I would hope that some smart person would find a way to legally remove him from office before he does more damage. But, I am not holding my breath.
The part I cannot get over is that Obambi knew the Iranians were dissembling & building bomb-making capabilities before he abandoned the Poles. So why did he abandon the Poles?
Was his thought that the Iranians intend to use their nukes on the Israelis, not the US – so who needs missile defence for the place where his own kids live in the Eastern US? Or does he think the Iranians are the same as himself — empty coats who will never actually use the weapons they are building at such great effort? Or has Obambi simply delegated everything to some ignorant 21 year old with an impressive credential from a suitably left-wing college?
#12 Wretchard: ‘We want the value — which is to solve Iran — and but the discourse is now being conducted with different dictionaries. The problem isn’t the speaker (who in this case is Obama). The problem is the dictionary. It’s possible that there is no value corresponding to the key “ultimatum” or “action”. It may even map as follows: (”ultimatum, “a preface to another ultimatum”), which can go on forever.’
So here is a question. We have a video of Obama at the G20 saying (in response to a question about Iran): “I’m not interested in victory”.
What is the key pair that produces the value “I’m not interested in victory, I’m interested in solving the problem”. What does that mean?
Please, watch the whole clip (it is less than one minute), and see if you can explain what it all means.
Does he want to lose if that solves the problem? Maybe a stalemate will solve the problem?
Anyway, its a bit confusing to me …
Is it really a ‘a language in which no real thought other than obedience to fantasy can be expressed’, or am I the confused one here?
Or, more probably, are both sides confused, and having a problem understanding each other?
its reaching the point where our prognostications will have to include when a nuclear exchange is likely to go off and where.
If I read this weeks news correctly, then the Great Mufti 0bama is going to get all the pliant, democratically elected nations to disarm their nuclear arsenals. and when that is done, rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran will no longer feel threatened by america’s aggressive aggressions and say “Why bother?”, see no further need to nuke up, and abandon they nuke program.
Its such a brilliant plan: Why Iran and North Korea will just absolutely almost die of embarrassment once they realize they are the only remaining nuclear force around, and will abandon their nuclear ambitions once they see that such an about face will bid them entry into the family of enlightened nations and sit at the table of brotherhood for some nice wine and brie.
/sarcasm off
If you’re like me, you come over with a wrinkled expression on your face, with eyes tightly shut, fingers plugged in ears, waiting for the wheeeee!! of incoming.
When a Wehrmacht was built for Hitler he didn’t get all soft and secure, safe and pleased that Germany could now get on with its life, secure in the knowledge that now no one would interfere.
the children won’t forgo playing with their nuclear toys.
That list of narcissistic tendencies means that once this thing goes awry, he has no plan B; because Mufti 0bama cannot imagine that any are not moved by his charm(!); and for all this talk of contingencies, there are none. If there is anything pencilled in at this late date, it is a pre-recorded disclaimer along these lines- “There was just too much BigBad EvilBush™, I tried”
The left can find all that in their dictionary.
But you, all stingy and greedy, cannot be bothered to get up off your easy chair and provide Iran and North Korea with an electricity grid to absorb all the peacefully energy that will be produced from their peacefully planned nuke programs, so what do you expect them to do?
Re: #37 rickl, I hope this answers your question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM01v_vVnbg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5cJuAtNcJA&feature=related
Perhaps it is so obvious that no one has bothered to mention it, but this very public statement at the U.N. leaves Obama with his back to the wall in the international arena.
Here is a neophyte international politician presiding over the world’s sole superpower, who has preached the evils of “unilateralism” since the beginning of his presidential campaign. He has consistently championed a “violence as a last resort”, international consensus approach to foreign policy.
Now, over this particular Iranian crisis he has been forced to lay his cards on the table. On the international stage and worldwide television coverage, he has called Iran out, threatening to use the tools of international diplomatic consensus if Iran won’t “come clean” on the nuclear issue at least.
Have he and his team thought this through to its logical conclusion?
If the Iranians fling this back in his face, President Obama will be forced to utilize EFFECTIVE military force in order to prove to the world he isn’t a pencil necked wimp. Six dozen conventionally armed cruise missiles plopping on easy military and regime targets are NOT going to convince the world’s wolves that Obama means business. He will have to destroy or set back the Iranian nuclear program a decade or more just retain credibility.
If President Obama is perceived to have backed down, the Iranian press, European media, and conservative American press (what little there is of it) will skewer him as a coward. This will be the end of Obama being able to credibly threaten force or to preside over effective international efforts to deal with serious international issues.
This issue and the high stakes public gamble it has provoked will forever change Obama’s administration. There only seem to be four likely scenarios:
1) Obama will be enormously strengthened by an Iranian capitulation, not very likely in my opinion.
2) The Iranians will successfully stall for time, which will reveal Obama to be the quintessential “weak horse” to our allies, and to every thuggish tin pot dictator and “Death to Amrekkki” terrorist on the planet. On the up side, this will still allow Obama to convince the pacifist / democrat / socialist faithful that he is demonstrating strong leadership on national defense.
3) The Iranians will publicly refuse to capitulate on the nuclear issue, and fling verbal feces at the Great Satan. Obama realizes his personal and foreign policy credibility is at risk with both the American public and worldwide leadership. Obama decides to follow in LBJ’s footsteps and become a serious war President. Regrettably, like LBJ, it is likely Obama doesn’t have the guts to do what is necessary to achieve victory, nor will he politically survive if he loses, so he’ll proceed with a half hearted mess very similar to LBJ in Vietnam.
4) The Iranians will publicly refuse to capitulate. Obama will waffle and fail to initiate any effective retribution thus proving his firmly implied public threat was only posturing. This will confirm to everyone, foreign and domestic, that he is the very embodiment of “the weak horse”.
Interesting times we live in. My bet is number 2.
Rex
AG/47; “I’m not interested in victory, I’m interested in solving the problem”.
First of all, solving the problem IS victory. Even a compromise is a victory if it solves the problem.
Second, victory is a synonym for solution. A solution, to qualify for the word, must solve the speaker’s problem. If it is someone else’s solution then it cannot have solved the speaker’s problem without being also the speaker’s solution.
Third, it may well be someone else’s solution too, but it can’t be the speaker’s without it being also a victory for the speaker.
So from the office of the American president, this parallel exclusionary is nonsensical. It’s nonsensical in the sense that it makes no sense for a defeat to be a solution, yet that is what Obama said it must be. What he said was, “the only solution is my official defeat”. The implication is, he is Obama, and he is ”occupying” the office of the American president.
Want to go on? okay, since ‘occupation’ is wrong, period, and the only solution to ‘wrongness’ is defeat, then the scenario is, Israel is actually the target of the entire Obama presidency.
Yes, ending that occupation (the word he has used on Israel repeatedly without qualification) will also end his own occupation of the office of POTUS, but no matter at all since ‘victory’ is a ‘wiped away’ Israel means a Persian Gulf under enemy totalitarian control, Russian rocket-protected, Chinese manpower-protected, and a West (long stunned energy-helpless & stupid by its Greens) rendered a colony (being mined first for its capital) of the “world island” –the One World.
okay, i started with a lot more rigor than i ended with –but this is where we tell our nightmares.
In the Presbyterian denomination my church is forced to stay in, we also speak two languages. We come up with statements both can live with, because in our different dictionaries we agree with what it says, only later to realize what those liberals meant, was not what we meant.
Words do have meaning, but sometimes it is more on the quality of all animals are equal, but some animals are more special than others, and need to be compensated for past wrongs.
What happens to Obama’s international credibility after the Iranians test their first nuclear weapon (that could happen tomorrow)?
What happens to Obama’s domestic credibility after the stock market Sucker’s Rally ends (that could happen as early as Monday and/or after the Iranian nuclear weapon’s test))?
The Chosen One is running out of options.
The “silver lining” is the Left and the MSM have bet everything on Obama.
I listened to his dreck. (It was hard not to want to smash something.) It was the same BS – I, I, I, I…..
Okay, this time we will really, really, REALLY say something nasty when Achmadinnerjacket doesn’t capitulate in December. We really, really, REALLY are going to send that strongly worded letter THIS time.
herb @ 4:
It ain’t incompetence nor bad policies, it is malice, I believe.
TCobb @ 34:
BHO: “Qo quiero, Taco Bell.”
I LOL’ed, I surely did!
We thank you, Barack
For taking us back
To the great days of Carter of Plains
A man now reviled
As the man who once dialed
Back a full half a century of gains
There are those who believe
That it’s righteous to grieve
For the days of inflation malaise
Which you will soon again
Bring to your countrymen
And which I am the first one to praise
In addition to which
I approve of your switch
From our allies to friends with our foes
Both the Poles and the Czechs
Must do as Putin becks
And Israelis their settlements must close
I most heart’ly applaud
Your near trip abroad
To the UN where Iran was told
That if they persist
In their nukes we’ll insist
That the next time they do it we’ll scold
That’s the way to be firm
Just your tone makes them squirm
Like Jimmy when fighting the rabbit
You’re a lot like James Earl
You fight like a girl
And when seeing a friend near you stab it
I dunno, Delenda Est Carthago was useful in its day, but I’m thinking more along the lines of Delenda Est Chicago.
“This whole thing is getting WAY too Biblical for me.”
Oh? –then where ya gonna go?
“uhhhhhh…mmmm…ahhhh….”
Oh the wonderful Ottoman Empire!
No system has ever reached higher;
ruled not by a man
but a couch-like divan
for your rest, whenever you tire!
Silly right-wing reactionaries!
Don’t you realize (or do you need time in the re-education camps?) to understand the important difference between imperialist triumphilist notions of “victory” and the approved Party slogan of “solving the problem”. Similar in nature to “the final solution”. (But for whom, you may ask? Don’t ask! Trotskyite revisionist!) Explanation of chess playing wizardry intellectual giant Obama can be found in minitruth blog “Huffington Post”. Go now and be enlightended!
In other news, the title has been announced by Tovarich Gibbs for Obama’s new autobiography (a book by Obama about his favorite subject). It will be called “My Struggle”.
Remember to put air in your tires, and conserve toilet paper. The fate of the world hangs in the balance.
Now hollon just a got dang minute here! We don’t go issuing UL-TEE-matums around here no more- That would be OFFENSIVE!!
We issue strongly worded pinultimatums now, like-
“This is your next-to-the-last warning!!!
Like #1 said, that ought to do it.
I think it has been discussed here before but, to cripple Iran’s nuclear ambitions would require hitting multiple facilities from the air with potent bunker busters – and possibly nuclear bunker busters.
The Israelis might be able do so using their F15s and F16s with conformal fuel tanks but, they would require Iraqi air space and probably refueling capabilities of American aircraft.
American Aircraft could probably do the job but it would stretch our already stretched air capabilities.
If air power failed, ground troops and demolition teams would be required. I don’t think Obama has the stomach for such operations.
The open source papers on the subject seem out-dated and contain some contradictions. But, it appears that most of Iran’s facilities are known. But, some are deep under ground and others not. The opinions on success of bombing said facilities vary from “possible” to “impossible.”
Some speculate that merely bombing all entrance and exits of said facilities would severely hamper Iran’s nuclear program. Others say that the centrifuges and the semi-complete fuel would have to be destroyed – a considerably harder project. This assumes no complete pits have been constructed.
http://tinyurl.com/5jw6do
It is know that the US Air Force is making a run of 30,000 lb bunker busters. It’s assumed they would be used mostly on Iran. But, given the 0bama Administration I doubt they would used at all.
http://tinyurl.com/yc4ddlx
In short, it boils down to will power and coordinated military action between the US and it allies. That will power doesn’t appear in the top leadership.
Here is a Preemptive Attack scenario (somewhat out-dated):
http://cns.miis.edu/stories/040812.htm
12. wretchard:
Luke 10:25-37
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. `Teacher,’ he asked, `what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ `What is written in the Law?’ he replied. `How do you read it?’ He answered: “`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’”; and, “`Love your neighbor as yourself.”‘ `You have answered correctly,’ Jesus replied. `Do this and you will live.’
//////////
According to christian theology the only way you can have eternal life is by believing in Jesus Christ. So why did Jesus give another way to eternal life to the lawyer(an expert on the Old Testament.) The answer is that Jesus gave the lawyer an impossible task. The lawyer would be unable to fulfill the requirements of the law and therefor he would not be able to get eternal life. No one (but jesus)has ever obeyed perfectly the 10 commandments. Not the first five that relate to the vertical relationship with God. Not the last five that related to the horizontal relationship with other people.
Romans 3:23
23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
“When it comes down to national security, I want the most competent and meanest son of a bitch we can get hold of.”
We had one. His name was Dick Cheney. But he doesn’t want to play any more.
///
“I really don’t see anything positive coming out of DC until the big 0 is out of office. In fact, the real problem lies with the big 0 himself. He is not fit for the position he now occupies. He is too weak and indecisive. I would hope that some smart person would find a way to legally remove him from office before he does more damage.”
Ledger: What this says to me is that you don’t think there is any possibility of Obama having a learning curve and becoming a better and/or more decisive President. I agree. Now, do you think that is because he is incapable of a learning curve, or because he has been ordered not to learn? Or does it really make any difference, if a majority of Americans have decided we want him out?
#62–I’d think that would make Jesus out as something of a dissembling son of a bitch. After all, the guy asked a serious question.
E.Nigma @58
“My Struggle”
Thank you! I needed a good laugh. Not that he hasn’t demonstrated time and again that he’s as clueless as they come insofar as history is concerned. Remember his speech about “people of destiny” in Germany last year? Anyway, it could happen. He’s about due for another autobiography.
OK Nahncee @14 Insofar as “doing something about the people who put Obama in power”, while I share your feelings about the true believers and get mad enough at them to spit nails some days, my two cents is that we should just chill out on that score. First of all, he wasn’t handed the keys to the kingdom by batty old General Hindenburg, he was elected. Sad but true. And voting for someone who turns out to be a disaster isn’t treason.
Moreover, he wasn’t elected solely by true believers on the Left. Omnipresent as they seem, there aren’t really that many of them. I suspect a lot of the people who voted for him were centrists who were fooled by his rhetoric and his lies (not to mention a brilliant marketing campaign) and no doubt a significant number of those would like to have those votes back now. Yes, most of us here at BC saw through him then and good for us. But what about those conservatives who saw through him then but nevertheless swore they’d NEVER vote for McCain, and the libertarians who saw through him then but wanted to “send a message” to the Republican party? And last but not least, let’s not forget the fecklessness of the Republicans, who need to be something more than the lesser of two evils if they’re ever going to regain Congress, much less the White House.
#62 Charles, #64 bob:
At this moment in time, Jesus had yet to be crucified, and die for “all those who have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God”. So he asked the expert on the law what the law said.
Jesus also said that (pf) “…no one would come before the Father except by Me” (himself, Jesus). This means that judgement will be administered by Jesus, in the name of the Father.
Once Jesus had faced down his doubt and fear, he went on to complete his mission.
#62 Charles,
Christians aren’t perfect, they are forgiven – the crunch difference that allowed Christianity to discover many worlds.
ADE
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Obama is anywhere near as intelligent as he’s been made out to be. He’s opportunistic, to be sure, but even stupid people can be cunning. I don’t think he’s stupid, exactly, but he’s clearly in way over his head as POTUS and doesn’t appear to have either the maturity or insight to learn from his mistakes and grow into the position. The people he’s surrounding himself with are just as bad or worse, none of which bodes well for us in the days ahead.
Amit Green #47: …or am I the confused one here?
Reminds me of the Scott Peck book People of the Lie in which the author said that the normal person’s reaction, when confronted with evil, is confusion. So yes, you’re confused.
Docbill #19: It appears that 9/11 wasn’t a big enough event to clear the registers and recalibrate the system.
If we do end up suffering some catastrophic attack, at this point I honestly believe Obama wouldn’t be all that terribly bothered. I believe his thinking would go something like: “Well, America had it coming. I did everything I could to prevent this sort of thing from happening, but obviously – and unfortunately – I arrived on the scene too late. If America would have elected someone like me a long time ago then this wouldn’t have happened.”
@63 NahnCee
The answer is both.
Obama has never had an honest job in his life. He has experience in shaking down Banks using the Community Investment Act and using racism as a weapon. That type of experience is of little use in the geopolitical arena (there are many races in the world and they don’t succumb to Obama’s racial weapons).
Second, he doesn’t want to learn – he already knows it all. This is arrogance and hubris. He is full of it.
All we can do is hope that is he is caught in one of his many financial scams and is booted out of the White House.
Two thoughts.
Obama offers two alternatives to Iran, either becoming part of the community of nations, or harm to their people.
This is classic strategic error. They think like me. They want what I want. Just a matter of reasonable people discussing their differences and coming to some agreement.
What if Iran wants a third thing? A nuke, which would give them the capability to do what they want under threat to whoever. Straits of Hormuz? What would you do about that Obama? Iraq’s and the Gulf state oil ports? Stop me. Oh, and Israel will no longer be a problem.
Obama brags about the agreement and seeming cooperation of Russia, Europe etc. That and $5 will get you coffee at Starbucks.
The fatal flaw to the whole picture is reality. Sure it is different to what Bush was doing. And so?
Derek
Great pic on topic at Theo Spark.
http://www.theospark.net/2009/09/ht-steve-m_27.html
@49. AR; “Have he and his team thought this through to its logical conclusion?
Logic and Leftists are water and oil. Never the twain shall mix.
“If the Iranians fling this back in his face, President Obama will be forced to utilize EFFECTIVE military force in order to prove to the world he isn’t a pencil necked wimp.”
He will be forced to use his
uberlogicschizophrenic power to reason himself into “A willing suspension of disbelief”“If President Obama is perceived to have backed down, the Iranian press, European media, and conservative American press (what little there is of it) will skewer him as a coward.”
The aforementioned “True believers” excepting the ConAP will profess his unseen backroom stradgedy (word means a tragic strategy. To channel Bugs Bunny) to twist reality into the meme of groupthink that controls them.
Past actions predict number 4 as the likely path chosen.
@51. P;
Your church needs a Martin Luther movement. Will you be his proxy and nail your theses of reformation to the door?
#34 Tcobb . . .
“When it gets down to it, the international arena is much like a dog fight. Wolves, pit-bulls, and Mastiffs fight. And all we have right now is a preening little Chihuahua to put into the ring.”
Great, great image!
Re the general topic of this thread–is there anything that the U.S. can do, short of war, to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions? I’d love to see a discussion of realistic options here.
A few years ago, when the war in Iraq was going on, and the Iranians were supplying weapons to the terrorists, it might have been a good time for a showdown. George Bush was already despised, so he could have sacrificed his future reputation in the interests of stopping the Iranians.
But can they really be stopped? They have the knowledge and the funding for their nuclear ambitions. We can’t really go in and cremate them because we *think* they might try to destroy us.
Another thought I had a few years ago (but it’s probably too late now) would have been to make a treaty with China to divide up the Persian oil fields. However, our current government is so incompetent that I don’t trust them to do anything right. Maybe it’s better to let events happen just like WW 1 happened. Then we can all (who live) spend the rest of the century wondering what went wrong.
Can’t we all just get along?
Qom boo ya, my homey. Qom boo ya…
A little leftist inspiration was all they needed.
Or should we sing,
Qom despair and agony on me
If it weren’t for the RNC
I’d have no power at all
Qom despair and agony on me
ththththat’s all folks!
“A few years ago, when the war in Iraq was going on, and the Iranians were supplying weapons to the terrorists …”
Iranians were (and are) supplying more than weapons. On numerous occasions, Persian soldiers have been arrested in Iraq (and then released with intervention by Maliki).
Ditto Afghanistan.
AND, Iran is providing the same sort of shelter for fleeing terrorists as Pakistan has been doing
For years, Iran has been happily and busily killing American soldiers so it’s just a teensy escalation for them to segue into killing American civilians.
Especially since we’ve been told that the Koran says it’s alright to kill Israeli grandmothers in pizza parlors because even grandmothers support the Israeli military and are therefore considered to be military themselves.
The Iranian version of “kill granny” death panels.
Nahncee,
So what should the U.S. do?
“What if Iran wants a third thing?” dkite@71.
Exactly.
Not only are most Iranians Shia, most are Twelver Shia.
Twelver Shia eschatology is apocalyptic and martyristic.
Ahmadinejad is from a Twelver Shia background.
Ahmadinejad’s repeated references to the imminence of
the Twelfth Imam’s return may merely be hypocrytical
manipulation of the more credulous portion of the Iranian
population, or they may be totally genuine expressions of
his personal beliefs. But does anyone really know which ?
(Does he know ?)
If the Twelfth Imam’s return is Ahmadinejad’s Third Thing,
then risking WW3 is not a negative for him, and he is not
going to be negoiated out of it. Retaliatory strikes,
issues of survivability or post-war control will not
trouble him, because the Twelfth Imam will handle it all
when he arrives.
Missile-delivered Nuclear weapons would not be essential to create an Imam-inducing chaos, but they give the bottle a bit of fizz, and since his program seems to be going so well and no-one seems about to stop him Ahmadinejad may be reluctant to resort to less spectacular devices.
Some will say that bringing about the deaths of millions in pursuit of a religious idea is just so 15th century that no-one alive today would contemplate it, but our year 2009 is Ahmadinejad’s year 1430, and those numbers are hugely suggestive of the gulf between him and us.
In our 1430, Heinrich Kramer was born, going on to join the Dominicans, burn heretics, and write Malleus Maleficarum, the Witches’ Hammer.
In his 1430, Ahmadinejad sat approvingly beside his spiritual
advisor Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, while the Ayatollah answered questions on the religious conditions for raping political prisoners of both sexes prior to execution.
“They think like me. They want what I want. Just a matter of
reasonable people discussing their differences and coming to
some agreement”. No.
77. Promethea -
go after the shooters – not the bullets -
if the mullahs, etc. have something to fear, MAYBE, that will stop them – I doubt it, though.
You have to go after the trigger pullers.
Off Topic [slightly]
any comments to –>
The Arab Preference for War
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/09/the-arab-prefer.php
The funny thing is, Obama’s America-hating is not making our America-hating enemies any friendlier. What a hoot that after Obama delivers this disgusting bullshit, news of another uranium enrichment plant in Iran comes out, and then they shoot off a bunch of missiles. Nice work, Bamster!
Even writers for the WaPo are getting disgusted by this act:
All About Obama
Obama’s rhetorical method in international contexts — given supreme expression at the United Nations this week — is a moral dialectic. The thesis: pre-Obama America is a nation of many flaws and failures. The antithesis: The world responds with understandable but misguided prejudice. The synthesis: Me. Me, at all costs; me, in spite of all terrors; me, however long and hard the road may be. How great a world we all should see, if only all were more like…me.
On several occasions, Obama attacked American conduct in simplistic caricatures a European diplomat might employ or applaud. He accused America of acing “unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others” — a slander against every American ally who has made sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan. He argued that, “America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy” — which is hardly a challenge for the Obama administration, which has yet to make a priority of promoting democracy or human rights anywhere in the world.
I can recall no other major American speech in which the narcissism of a leader has been quite so pronounced. It might be compared to Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s “I shall return” — which made it sound like MacArthur intended to reconquer the Philippines single-handedly. But MacArthur, at least, imagined himself as embodying his country, not transcending it. He did not assert that while the Japanese invasion was certainly excessive, America had been guilty of provocations of its own — and now, in the MacArthur era, things would be finally different.
Twice in his United Nations speech, Obama dares to quote Franklin Roosevelt. I have read quite a bit of Roosevelt’s rhetoric. It is impossible to imagine him, under any circumstances, unfairly criticizing his own country in an international forum in order to make himself look better in comparison. He would have considered such a rhetorical strategy shameful — as indeed it is.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/all_about_obama.html
Still, most disgusting of all is Obama explicitly ignoring Gen. McChrystal’s urgent pleas that we are on the brink of losing the war in Afghanistan, the President says he hasn’t even deigned to read the report that was delivered a month ago. The best quote of all comes from Hillary Clinton, though, this is just precious:
“There are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counterinsurgencies that are the exact opposite of McChrystal’s,” said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Translation: We are busy slamming through the communization of America, we ain’t got time for no stinking “necessary war” bullshit.
Open Hand, meet Clenched Fist
“The message of the war game for some arrogant countries which intend to intimidate is that we are able to give a proper, strong answer to their hostility quickly,” the Web site of state television quoted Salami as saying. He said the missiles successfully hit their targets.
Salami told reporters Iran had reduced the missiles and their ranges so they could be used in quick, short-range engagements. He also said Iran would test medium-range Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 missiles on Sunday night and long-range Shahab-3 missiles on Monday, during the drill set to last several days. The Revolutionary Guard controls Iran’s missile program.
The tests came two days after Western countries disclosed that Iran had been secretly developing a previously unknown underground uranium enrichment facility.
If Obama is forced to stick his nose any higher in the air to sniff derrisively at the Iranians, he might sprain his neck, then where would we be? Could Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton express such exquisite derrision? I think not…
Regarding the dictionary meme, I agree with Wretchard that Obama is only one more symptom of the deeper problem. I think the reason so many people have screwed up dictionaries is that we’ve disconnected them from important feedback loops. The test cases that tell someone when their dictionary is wrong have been turned off or had their tolerances set way too high. Living in a prosperous, peaceful and freindly country, you usually don’t get kicked very hard when you screw up. So how are you supposed to know that “Toothless Ultimatum” maps to “be ignored as clueless lightweight” instead of “solve the problem”? Well, yeah, history, but not many people study that anymore and half the ones who do study it with a dictionary already screwed up so they’re unable to make any sense of a straight-forward parsing of events.
Years ago, I wrote a specialized compression engine for a software product we were working on. It was the most complex piece of code I’d written up till then (and remained so for another decade). A tester was assigned to write a suite of test cases. When I had my first version of the engine ready, I gave it to him to test. A couple hours later, he reported back that it passed, everything looked good.
I was skeptical. I knew I was good, but I also knew I wasn’t perfect and I’d just written a lot of code. There had to be a bug in there somewhere. I went and made a small change to the code in my engine, intentionally breaking something. Then I gave it back to the tester, saying I’d cleaned up something and could he test it again please. A couple hours later he reported back that it passed, everything looked good.
I said, very politely “Your test has a bug in it” and explained what I’d done. The guy took it perfectly – he was not the least angry with me for pulling a trick on him and was greatful that I caught the error. He went and found it – a bug in the tolerance checking that allowed failures to slip through undectected. He fixed it, reran the test on my clean code, and found a half dozen bugs for me to fix.
Years later, I was working at “a large software company” and in a technical meeting I suggested we adopt a similiar practice to validate our test suites. The Test Manager in the room took offense, thought I was dissing him and his people. Sigh. Arrogance and inflated self-importance, putting self-esteem ahead of results, no wonder people get their dictionaries out of whack.
Fwald47, re: The Arab Preference for War. Reminds me somewhat of the Teutonic tendancy at the start of the last century. But they had that beat out of them, eventually, and look at them now–aghast at the very thought of enforcing UN resolutions or NATO requirements they themselves happily agreed upon. (Not to argue either extreme is the preferred setting.)
At present the Arabs operate under the myth of superiority to the Jews that the Germans held relative to the French even after being thoroughly beaten in WW I. It is myth functioning as arrogance, needing a smackdown. The irony in the present situation is that Iran, not Israel, is poised to supply the coming absolute defeat, but not before Israel itself is annihilated. Maybe some in the Arab world see it, hopefully they do. They would be smart to align with the Jews if their preference for war also includes a desire for survival. (It’s no doubt asking too much, but what are the chances Saudi Arabia will come to its senses and allow overflight rights to the Israeli Air Force?)
I don’t really see the Arabs cooperating even among themselves to stop the Iranian threat, any more than I see Obama becoming a warrior President. What is more likely is that Sarkozy the (True) American gets tired of the chickenshit (in all its manifestations) and orders a strike, damn the consequences–which will, even so, result in consequences some level less dire than if Israel is forced to move.
Tony, sounds like someone has just thrown down the gauntlet.
#64 bob: 66. Gaffe Prices:
I probably should have included the next line part of the passage.
29 But he[the lawyer], wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed,[c] he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ 36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”
37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
……
An added difficulty in interpreting Jesus message — for the lawyer here — is that the Samaritans were a mixed race people, half Assyrian and half Jewish. ie to the Jews — a people of ill repute.
#19 Docbill
–Anyone want to venture if there will ever be a reset mechanism?–
In my opinion, Yes. The real question is When and Where? For now, unknowable in the Western World. I wonder what The One really knows, if anything. The smaller financial scam connection to Obama has already been uncovered (Acorn). Financial connections to the ME yet to be revealed. Has the gaming been rehearsed by our military leaders for a real civil war that would follow attempts to remove him from office? I believe Biden could be “managed” but not with a full-scale shooting civil war. Sometimes I wonder if I’ll ever be happy again.
I am surprised to hear a report that the Samaritans were of mixed race. The wiki page gives some credence to speculation that they are partially descended from people sent to replace Jews in exile during the Babylonian Captivity. They were named for the ancient Israelite capital of Samaria. Their chief peculiarity is that they do not recognize any of the scriptures compiled after the Pentateuch. That is to say that they recognize a close variant of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers Leviticus and Deuteronomy) but not the Prophets or the Writings that comprise the rest of the Jewish scripture. In the ancient world schismatic religious communities were common. They particularly thrived when society was under pressure, as in by foreign invasion. That makes those times much like our own. Other examples of specialized sect or splinters from the main body of judaism at various times included the Nazerites that Samson belonged to and the Essenes of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The later may have been associated with John the Baptist.
I don’t know how authoritative the Jewish Virtual Library is but a search of Samaritan Assyrian brings them up as the first choice by google. The Assyrians exiled the 10 lost tribes to who knows where and replaced them with their own people when the northern kingdom Israel was conquered in 722 by Sargon II.
The Jewish Virtual Library doesn’t mention that the Samaritans had any Jewish blood in them. Here’s what they relate:
One other consequence of the Assyrian invasion of Israel involved the settling of Israel by Assyrians. This group settled in the capital of Israel, Samaria, and they took with them Assyrian gods and cultic practices. But the people of the Middle East were above everything else highly superstitious. Even the Hebrews didn’t necessarily deny the existence or power of other peoples’ gods—just in case. Conquering peoples constantly feared that the local gods would wreak vengeance on them. Therefore, they would adopt the local god or gods into their religion and cultic practices. Within a short time, the Assyrians in Samaria were worshipping Yahweh as well as their own gods; within a couple centuries, they would be worshipping Yahweh exclusively. Thus was formed the only major schism in the Yahweh religion: the schism between the Jews and the Samaritans. The Samaritans, who were Assyrian and therefore non-Hebrew, adopted almost all of the Hebrew Torah and cultic practices; unlike the Jews, however, they believed that they could sacrifice to God outside of the temple in Jerusalem. The Jews frowned on the Samaritans, denying that a non-Hebrew had any right to be included among the chosen people and angered that the Samaritans would dare to sacrifice to Yahweh outside of Jerusalem. The Samaritan schism played a major role in the rhetoric of Jesus of Nazareth; and there are still Samaritans alive today around the city of Samaria.
Sirius,
Looks like our enemies are moving with the same earnest alacrity on their strategies that our President devotes to the stimulus bill, cap’n'trade, health “reform,” de-funding best-in-world weapons systems (F-22, KEI, Euro-missile-defense, our own missile defense), “closing” Gitmo, “stopping” torture, re-opening closed investigations against CIA operators, and other such crucial missions.
The quasi official line that the Samaritans are non-Jews imitating Judaism but getting it wrong, puts them in a position analogous to Mohammed’s creation of Islam. That is doubly interesting given that many of the West Bank’s local “Palestinian” Moslem community may be descended from Samaritans, according to wiki. My suspicion, based on nothing more than observing how the world turns, is that there was probably conservative opposition to the transfer of the sacrificial cult to the new temple Jerusalem by the recently created monarchy. There may have been adherents to the pre-monarchical tradition in the countryside, particularly in the North which soon separated from the Kingdom of Judah. After the Northern KIngdom was extinguished the more loosely organized variant of the faith could have survived in the hills and been there for either new immigrants or returnees to encounter. The adherents of the official religion based in Jerusalem would have been highly motivated to denigrate the rural heretics. Given that the temple priests wrote the scriptures and accounts that survived it makes sense that the Samaritans come across as a minor group of outsiders. If the numbers in the wiki are accurate there were hundreds of thousands of them at one time. Now there are fewer than one thousand.
“I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.”
Explains a lot.
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/09/26/great-moments-in-cognitive-dissonance-2/
In my dictionary “honest” and “lie” are diametrically opposed concepts. Stupid dictionary.
“So what should the U.S. do?”
I honestly thought Bush had a perfectly logical case for nuking the SOB’s before he left office, on the grounds that they’ve been attacking and killng American soldiers in various war zones. I still do.
I’m pretty sure Obama must be aware of an old nuke or two lying about unused and unappreciated, and would have no problem with it at all if he walked in his sleep some night and nuked Iran back to the Stone Age.
And don’t be telling me about all those poor Persian protestors in the streets …. who are undoubtedly related to and supporting the Iranian soldiers who have been killing Americans for almost a decade now. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would squall, but I wonder how loudly or for how long. And Israel might even start to consider us as being equals again.
Of coure, this *is* predicated upon a wishful hope that Arab oil money didn’t buy Obama his key to the White House executive washroom.
92. Lifeofthemind:
That is doubly interesting given that many of the West Bank’s local “Palestinian” Moslem community may be descended from Samaritans, according to wiki.
……
It was just one town on the west bank. From wiki
Samaritans living almost exclusively in two localities, one in Kiryat Luza on Mount Gerizim near the city of Nablus (Shechem) in the Palestinian territories’ West Bank, and the other in the Israeli city of Holon.[6
……..
The quasi official line that the Samaritans are non-Jews imitating Judaism but getting it wrong, puts them in a position analogous to Islam.
This broadens the meaning of the word “analogous” imho beyond what was intended. Used this way you could easily replace Islam with Christianity.
A better analogy would be the Ethiopian jews who while clearly are not ethnic jews–were considered to be historically jewish and therefor eligible for israeli citizenship.
This wiki article lists the people who claim
to be of the lost tribes of israel
RE: definitions v dictionary. I think the words mean the same, but the context is different.
Where president Obama says he doesn’t want to win, just fix the “problem”, the word “problem” still means the same thing. It just is that what I consider the problem is not what Obama sees is the problem. That is problematical when playing word games will define and decide our future action and how many of our troops will live or die this year.
The smirk on Ahmadineajad’s face when told of the remarks of president Obama re the secret sites, was telling. The words Ahmadineajad used tell an even better story “Mr. Obama is ab out to say this? So is all the information Mr Obama receives of the same nature? If I were Mr. Obama advisor I would definitely advise against making this statement, because it is definitively a mistake. There is no secrecy. We work within the framework of the IAEA.”
Obviously nuclear weapons sites are not a problem for Ahmadinejad. So what is the problem? The notion of secrecy? Or the face lost by publicly disclosing all this now despite the (forced) letter to the IAEA. It seems the IAEA seeks lawyer-client privilege in its dealings with certain Nuclear bound nations. I don’t think that is especially wise. But who knows what the velvet revolutionaries in the streets of Tehran are disposed to believe about such privilege.
94. NahnCee,
I thought I remembered that Khomeini delared war against the Great Satan, aka the USA in 1979 about the time of the embassy crisis, the attack on which constituted a furter virtual declaration of war via an attack on sovereign territory. I do not memenber any subsequent peace treaty, or any othe ayatollic declaration rescinding their war declaration. hot even a fabled “hudna”. Thus, by my reckoning, we have been in a state of war with Iran for about thirty years, unless someone can show me my logical error. So, I would like to second your idea about treating Iran as an enemy. And also doing something about a certain high-ranking official who seems to be betraying our national interests to that enemy. “All enemies foreign and domestic”?
sirius,
France doesn’t have the conventional capability to strike; I don’t see any way that they would launch a unilateral nuclear strike. They might be able to push Pres Obama enough to take action, but I suspect that he will not do much and Israel will end up acting. Hopefully successfully.
LoTM:
In modern naval parlance that is the Petty Officer 2nd class who tries to fix the nuclear power plant on his own just to impress the Chief. That is the guy who kills people.
============================================
It ends with the Captain of the Carrier saying “Chief H. can you stay here?” and the Chief never being seen again.
The Navy Nuclear Power Program is so different because those guys are weeded out in power school, prototype, or on the ship. As the second class who was actually in charge, I wouldn’t let anyone touch any job they were not capable of. Also any job more complex than brushing the rust off of a valve stem would require competence from at least 5 people anyway.
About the only way to screw up a nuclear power plant requires the involvement of an Officer. And they are made to sit in a box with five enlisted men to keep them from screwing up.
So please pick a different example, because my skivvies get all bunched up every time you use that story.
I meant to jump into this thread earlier, but we found ourselves spending the day helping an old friend pick the apples off of her tree that she cannot manage to do anymore. She is older than we are, having been a child in eastern Germany when Hitler took power, and she did not get to this country until after the war. She normally does not talk politics, because she has a permanent resident visa and is not a citizen. But while we were over there today, she wanted to emphasize something to us. She says that America is now like Germany in 1932-33. She has seen it before and says she is seeing it again. Something to think about. Especially in reference to the “dictionary” that Wretchard mentioned.
# 12 Wretchard, #17 LOTM, #19 Docbill
This points to something I have been pondering and talking about. I have used the acronym TWANLOC, Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen. And yes, it does refer to the Democrats and their allies on the Left. But there is more to it than an accurate, convenient, albeit deliberately insulting, description.
What makes a nation? What factors have to be present to forge people into one political and cultural entity, rather than a group of semi-hostile tribes that have to live cheek by jowl.
Sparked by Wretchard, we have been discussing language. If you are part of a nation, you must either have one common language or if there is more the people must be multiply fluent. This is important because language determines thought patterns. If a language does not have a word, the people who speak that language do not have the concept the word represents. As an example, one of the problems when the West encountered China, they did not understand each other. When Westerners extolled the virtues of freedom, the word did not translate into Chinese as the concept of liberty under the rule of law. It translated as “license”, which did not go over well in Chinese culture.
We no longer share the same language as those I refer to as TWANLOC. The words do not mean the same things, and they are more than willing to twist words because the very concepts of “meaning” and “cause and effect” for them are just “social constructs”. It is akin to Marxist value; that which promotes the revolution is good, that what does not is evil.
To be a nation, a people must share a history, and within the bounds of socialization [in the political science sense, not the sense of a Socialist Party], they must share a basic interpretation of that history. To those Americans who we can call Patriots, America has had, and has flaws, but the overall trend is to fix what is wrong. To TWANLOC, America is an unmitigated evil. It is the cause of all the troubles of everyone else in the world. Take the view of slavery. To Patriots, slavery was wrong, our forefathers fought a war and lost hundreds of thousands of lives to end it. And no one alive now has owned a slave. To TWANLOC, America is somehow permanently tainted for having slavery, ever. Yet somehow, Islamic cultures that still enslave people are somehow pure. That is but one example, but if you talk to any Chiroptera Lunarii, if they have any knowledge of a history before their puberty, you will find an ingrained belief that the United States has never done anything good.
To be a nation, people have to share a culture. What is our shared culture? Is it the heritage of Europe focused through the lens of post-Civil War [English Civil War] Britain? Is it the culture of victimization that values failure over achievement? Is it the heritage of the descendants of those oppressed by the Spanish? Is it the culture of the Europhile Marxists on the coasts? Once again, the context of the “dictionary” differs from group to group. And as the context shifts, meaning shifts. Indeed one could question whether there is any meaning that can be transmitted. Because, amongst others, the last 3 cultures mentioned have ‘deconstructed’ the concept of meaning to the point of, well, meaninglessness. Words and concepts mean what is advantageous to them at the moment, and you cannot hold them to any logical consistency. I am sure my fellow BC-ers have encountered this when dealing with Chiroptera Lunarii. Case in point, “All discrimination is bad, especially when practiced by someone opposed to the Left.”. But “Discrimination against Whites, males, and those who achieve is good; especially if it favors those who are non-white [except Asians], females, and those who are incapable of achievement.”. Red Queen territory.
The final, and most obvious, characteristic of nationhood is a shared territory over a period of time. And yes, all the disparate groups that are in this country share the territory of the 50 [or 57 if you are an Obamabot] states. But there is still a separation within the 50 states. The Left holds sway in large urban areas. [see presidential vote maps broken down by county] That is where their culture is based. We accept the difference and even joke about it. New Yorkers tend to believe that everything from New Jersey [a wilderness itself] to California really doesn’t exist except for outposts like Chicago, Boulder [Colorado] and Austin [Texas]. It is flyover country and it and its inhabitants are considered uneducated rubes who cling to guns and Bibles, and probably could not either identify the finest vintages of any given year in France or comprehend the subtle, ironic artistic nuances of a crucifix immersed in urine. Nor do they understand the complexities of the urban minority experience and they fail to celebrate the various gansta lifestyles.
Those in flyover country tend to believe in guns, God, and the Constitution; not in that order. And they disproportionately take up the burden of defending this country; over the objections of the Coastal Left who hates the military and those who serve. Once again culture, but also culture that is separated geographically.
Are we one nation? E Pluribus Unum? Are we countrymen anymore in any meaningful way? Do we speak the same language, share the same history, come from the same culture, or live side by side in peace and mutual respect?
A “reset moment” was mentioned. It may be the loss of one or more cities to nuclear terrorism; but that may be merely taken as an opportunity of imposing a Leftist political tyranny. It may be that after an over-reach, it will come to an actual separation by whatever means necessary. It may come in the midst of an economic collapse that combines the worst of Weimar and Zimbabwe. But whatever it is, must perforce be transformational, because we are too far separated for the differences to be papered over.
Subotai Bahadur
we DO have to keep in mind that we are all laboring under the most psychologically depressing national leadership possible. That would be one that, on any given topic, has something else in mind than what it is saying.
This shows up in a way that has become so familiar to us that we no longer even take note of it as our leaders (partly because they have no choice, partly because they may well be unaware that in the negative spaces they’re letting it all hang out) demonstrate it.
It’s the uniformly furtive mannerism & facial expression, combined with the clear disconnect apparent between delayed halting sentences and the racing, translating, euphemizing, checklisting, rearranging, mind behind them.
Depressing as hell, and depression forecloses an awful of better solutions than the ones that depression makes seem inevitable.
Buddy,
Short term I’m pessimistic, but cautiously optimistic long term.
SB 101 writes of TWANLOCs. Yeah, they’re there, but I think in small numbers (although they have disproportional influence right now).
The TWANLOCs are in power now, God help them, and almost every piece of legislation they’re proposing will have one effect, the lowering of middle class standards of living. This is an easy theme to demonstrate, whether it’s Health Insurance, Cap and Trade, etc. Lowering the standard of living is not the road to long term political success.
The one silver lining I see to this cloud is the fact that they are in power, can no longer work in the shadows, and will get the Lions share of the blame when things get worse. If we get real lucky we’ll be able to set them back decades before this is all over.
And I disagree with those who say our Countrymen can only be those who share a political history with us. We have many who have immigrated to this country who love and appreciate what we have here, who will be stouter defenders of same than many native borns.
Most here say O’s win equals a stupid populace. I think it was more of a reflection on the incredible corruption and ineptness of the GOP. If you’re a political party and you can’t beat someone like this, even with all of his institutional help, you need to look in the mirror.
The vast majority who voted for O are not TWANLOCS – they are people who love this country and saw it on the wrong path. They may not agree with me, and I may think them wrong or ill informed, but they don’t want to destroy the Country. Yeah, they could have done more due diligence and vetted O more thoroughly, but the fact that someone of his caliber was able to be elected says more about the GOP than the voters, IMO.
We’re in a period that promises to be just as gut wrenching and unstable as the Industrial Revolution. I think this true regardless of who is in power, and all politicians will be walking a tightrope for many years as this plays out.
#28
Simon’s Law:
It is unwise to attribute to malice alone that which can be attributed to malice and stupidity.
#60,
You can hamper centrifuges by destroying the electrical supply. If they have back ups destroy the air inlets and outlets. Also closing the entrances at the same time would be good.
#62,
Shortcut to eternal life. Don’t live in fear.
#67,
The Jews aren’t perfect. They do need to forgive each other. And everyone else. Once the fighting stops.
Which is today’s message.
the crunch difference that allowed Christianity to discover many worlds.
Ah. A follower of Kripke.
what are the chances Saudi Arabia will come to its senses and allow overflight rights to the Israeli Air Force?
Given recent history (2006) pretty good. The Saudi’s first words “we have no dog in the fight”. Second words “evil Israelis”. Actions: sat on their hands.
100 Mark B.
ET Treasure Island, Mare Island, A1W Idaho (3 hours of orals 10 interrogators – it took that long to trip me), DLGN-25
#103 dtmack
And I disagree with those who say our Countrymen can only be those who share a political history with us. We have many who have immigrated to this country who love and appreciate what we have here, who will be stouter defenders of same than many native borns.
I did not in any way mean to say that immigrants did not share the history. That is why I specifically mentioned the socialization process. Short form, it is the process wherein each generation [and for our purposes new, legal immigrants are becoming first generation Americans] learns and inculcates the morals, mores, and customs of a society [and it is not a linear process as there are always countervailing forces]. A legal immigrant JOB [Just Off the Boat] is frequently more socialized in our mores and history than someone raised in our school system. And is more willing to be further socialized than the native. With “and within the bounds of socialization [in the political science sense, not the sense of a Socialist Party], they must share a basic interpretation of that history.” that was the case I was thinking of. Immigrants tend to learn what I could call the Patriot version of our history, and assimilate it. There are few more fervent supporters of this country than immigrants, for they have already committed their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor by choosing to uproot and move here.
I apologize if I failed to make myself clear.
As far as the level of separation, and YMMV, I am thinking of the period 1775-1800. There were about 1/3 Tories here at the beginning if not more. As the conflict progressed, that percentage fell. From 1783-1800, about 1/3 of the shrunken number Tories remaining left the country, and the rest became ….. notably quiet … as far as politics were concerned. Being a Tory after 1783 had its consequences; be they social, economic, or … kinetic. It took a generation for the animosity to die down, and that was simply because the Tories themselves died out. Their descendents, in the main, did not have any loyalty to the mother country, and were socialized into the new civic model.
The Revolution was such a reset moment. And something as drastic and prolonged may be needed today and be in our future. Those who support TWANLOC today, and in the past, are going to have a very limited window for deciding where their loyalties are once we reach the tipping point. And indeed, so will those I denote as Patriots. For there is no guarantee, beyond faith, that “the good guys” will prevail. And I suspect that given the ideological heritage of TWANLOC, if they should win, those who can flee the country will be the fortunate ones. They will be called, “survivors”.
One thing I will guarantee. The history of the conflict will be written by those who prevail.
I think I will add a second guarantee. Those of us who comment here will be considered to have already chosen sides by TWANLOC.
Subotai Bahadur
worth noting that the government completed confiscation of private firearms in Germany just two days before “Kristallnacht”.
charles,
I am not putting Christianity into a position analogous to Islam. That is part of my point, they are completely different. Christianity arose among practicing Jews as one of many variants. After a period in excess of a hundred years people began to understand that it was a new religion. Islam was created by a man who had met some Jewish merchants and decided that they did not know their own religion. The Ethiopian Falasha are interesting. While there are differences between their practices and those of other Jews, such as the Yemenite community, and I am sure their history is fascinating, I would consider them Jews. They are certainly closer to mainstream Judaism than the Samaritans are. My point was that the official Jewish view of the Samaritans cast them in a light similar to Islam but that I suspect that to be unfair.
Mark B,
Pax. Everything about nukes, power or specweaps, is very tightly controlled. I remember when we did a movement and I was the PRP Courier. The Marines looked happy. They had been told that if an officer stepped over the invisible line they could shoot him. Never wanted to be a Nuke myself. Takes a special type to live in a sewer pipe. OK already I’ll stop. Nukes are more highly selected and their community benefits from not having to deal with the personnel problems and frictions faced by the rest of the service.
Subotai Bahdur,
While I am uncomfortable with your TWANLOC designation I do find your general argument about the nature of the problem thoughtful. There is an issue with drawing lines between those who are part of the democratic community and those who aren’t. Who gets to decide? The unfortunate record seems to be that the deciders get corrupted and drive wedges within the presumptively loyal members of the polis.
LotM, does this hypothetical make sense:
Iran has gone off on this missile-firing spree within the same news cycle as the world focused on ‘Iranian nukes’ in order to cement in people’s minds that Iran intends to put their nukes on missiles.
In fact this spree, and the whole missile program, may be just for the establishment of a ruse.
The ruse is, that when Tel Aviv (or something) explodes, it can’t have been an Iranian project, because the bomb will have been smuggled in, and as the whole world knows Iran has been balls-out developing missiles in order to deliver their nukes.
“So why would they have spent all that treasure and effort and time on missiles if they were just gonna smuggle a bomb wherever they wanted to explode it?” is the question they are planting in the world.
So, the missile frenzy indicates that they do in fact intend to use a nuclear weapon on an enemy.
And they intend to survive the doing it. They do not have to besuicidal “Twrs” in order to proceed with a standard conquering warfare.
Sorry, the editing function was jumping the text around like popcorn and i ran out of time. “They do not have to be suicidal “Twelvers” in order to proceed….”
The whole “Twelver” meme could be disinformation –it IS implausible, and yet DOES seem to call for caution when dealing with the regime. IOW in the carrying forward of a lesser argument against its being so, it fits as classic disinformation, and functions to hide the cold-blooded logic of war preparation as something scary yes but so wild that time itself working through the common people will eventually tamp it down and out.
And the common people are, you know, against the regime anyway –didn’t we just see the riots the flamboyantly stolen election roused up?
Lastly, the ongoing missile frenzy –they fired a new longe range model just today –is dangerous enough –in the sense of attracting an Israeli attack –that the stakes must be high enough to justify the risk. So –what would those stakes be today, at this time, with the warheads –the bombs –not yet developed? What is the reward to match the risk? Can’t think of anything proximate that makes sense –other than “those crazy, bellicose Iranians”?
Exactly. Only a smuggled-in bomb ties it all together.
(end hypothetical)
luddy barsen,
There are no end to the iterations you can put that train through. What if they are only pretending to pretend to be apocalyptic so that less crazy technicians collaborate on the missiles project expecting the real bomb to be delivered by small boat? What if the small boat or camel herd smuggler thinks that the real weapons are being prepared for delivery by missile and do not know that they have the genuine dingus? Remember that only the four pilots on the 9-11 hijacking teams knew that they were on one way missions.
We will only be safe when the study of Twelverism is like the study of Carlism or the study of the Cult of Kali. That is something used to inspire improbable adventure movies and to provide thesis fodder for graduate students cultivating obscurity.
We live in a world of mass communications. That means that diseases of the body or of the spirit can climb out of unfumigated holes and spread around the globe.
i guess you’re right, Lotm –it’s just a sort of fit that comes over people, that they try to see inside that darkness.
you know, the man who will get the go sign, defense minister Ehud Barak, in a dozen major roles in major battles has never lost. His only big loss was Oslo. the irony is …is what, i have no word, it’s still up in the air.
Goliath stands there, with ten times the people and fabulous oil and gas treasures and two of three superpowers as allies, and screams lies and blood threats.
David hears, and looks to the sling and the stone in his hands.
Far across the seas, the chief of the people who are with David, is spellbinding the people with prophecies of inappropriate healthcare, and the sight and sound of Goliath duly fades away into the mist.
Somewhere in the distance a dog howls
LoTM,
Nuke Power and Weapons two different animals. They like to use the nukes to man the weapons details. By the way, that line thing is true.
I said to the LTCMDR, “He’s got a gun, and he says you have to go around. I’m thinking he’s right, sir.” I know that Marine was smiling inside.
You are absolutely right about the selectivity. The entire selection and training path was very tightly controlled by Rickover’s design.
The end product is a mix of intelligence, integrity, and competence, which is why I had a problem with the scenario.
That said, I’ve been reading BC for years, and am still in awe of the writers on these pages, including you, LoTM.