I know this is obvious, but I have to vent.
If I hear one more politician say that we need to "keep all options on the table" with regard to Iran my head is going to explode. There is not a single person who actually thinks we should keep *all* options on the table with regard to Iran or any other country or situation we might face. Obviously we aren't going to release smallpox in Iran. Obviously we are not going to launch an all out ICBM attack on every city and town in Iran. So why the fuck do people keep saying we need to keep every option on the table. It doesn't mean anything. What they mean is they want to keep the option of nuking Iran with locally deployed weapons on the table. But they want the cover of being able to say that they aren't saying specifically we should use nukes - it's just part of "keeping everything on the table."
Why won't a reporter follow up with a question asking one of them if that therefore means they support keeping the smallpox option on the table? Or how about crashing the Moon into Iran? I mean come on! Every option is *not* on the table. This is ridiculous.
well, stephanopoulos called joe klein "insane" for conventional wisdomizing that nukes ought to be "on the table." so if you had awards for excellence and vapidness in reporting theyd each be well deserving.
but can we really crash the moon into iran? id definitely keep that option on the table.
In Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, the rebelling inmates in a lunar penal colony dropped moon rocks on Earth. The effect was rather devastating.
Normon Solomon is complaining, I think legitimately, that Moveon.org is only supporting not using nukes on Iran. How about not bombing the country, period? Moveon says "we want to bring the largest number of people into the conversation first."
This whole country is nuts. (But I love America.)
and we aint gonna send laura in there nekid to scare em to death...
my bad, but thats what came to mind when i heard "w" talkin' "all options" and "tables" again today.
By pushing nukes, the neocons may be aiming for a relief reaction when conventional weapons are used.
"Well, they invaded yet another country, but at least they didn't use the atomic cannon."
That's a variation on how they sold Iraq: "We just moved one hundred thousand troops to show our strength, you'll be relieved when we don't actually invade."
The story that "Iran's on the verge of going nuclear" is just for the rubes.
The issue "on the table" should be, how many wars can we realistically provoke?
Just checked the CIA World Factbook entry on Iran for a statistic: population 68.6 million. I noticed that the background blurb completely overlooks the 1953 coup. This goes beyond modesty. Where the hell is their pride in workmanship?
In answer to your question, Tom, the conventional answer has always been: 2. Of course, we've got that many going now. But, if one remembers that Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are all part of the Global War on Islamofascistan, then we've only used up 1 of our 2 wars. And don't forget that Mr. Kim!
The real question is how far the American public will let Bush go. I don't have much hope in the American public at this point. An attack on Iran based on some sort of trumped up bullshit would probably be greated with a rally-round-the-flag response. I doubt Bush would be stupid enough to try to occupy Iran, but I do think he's stupid enough to think bombing them would be a good thing.
m berman said today bush won '04 not in spite of aba ghraib but because of it. no reason to have any faith in the american public.
|
If I hear one more politician say that we need to "keep all options on the table" with regard to Iran my head is going to explode. There is not a single person who actually thinks we should keep *all* options on the table with regard to Iran or any other country or situation we might face. Obviously we aren't going to release smallpox in Iran. Obviously we are not going to launch an all out ICBM attack on every city and town in Iran. So why the fuck do people keep saying we need to keep every option on the table. It doesn't mean anything. What they mean is they want to keep the option of nuking Iran with locally deployed weapons on the table. But they want the cover of being able to say that they aren't saying specifically we should use nukes - it's just part of "keeping everything on the table."
Why won't a reporter follow up with a question asking one of them if that therefore means they support keeping the smallpox option on the table? Or how about crashing the Moon into Iran? I mean come on! Every option is *not* on the table. This is ridiculous.
- jim 4-18-2006 9:39 pm
well, stephanopoulos called joe klein "insane" for conventional wisdomizing that nukes ought to be "on the table." so if you had awards for excellence and vapidness in reporting theyd each be well deserving.
but can we really crash the moon into iran? id definitely keep that option on the table.
- dave 4-18-2006 9:52 pm
In Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, the rebelling inmates in a lunar penal colony dropped moon rocks on Earth. The effect was rather devastating.
Normon Solomon is complaining, I think legitimately, that Moveon.org is only supporting not using nukes on Iran. How about not bombing the country, period? Moveon says "we want to bring the largest number of people into the conversation first."
This whole country is nuts. (But I love America.)
- tom moody 4-18-2006 9:57 pm
and we aint gonna send laura in there nekid to scare em to death...
my bad, but thats what came to mind when i heard "w" talkin' "all options" and "tables" again today.
- bill 4-18-2006 11:41 pm
By pushing nukes, the neocons may be aiming for a relief reaction when conventional weapons are used.
"Well, they invaded yet another country, but at least they didn't use the atomic cannon."
- mark 4-18-2006 11:47 pm
That's a variation on how they sold Iraq: "We just moved one hundred thousand troops to show our strength, you'll be relieved when we don't actually invade."
The story that "Iran's on the verge of going nuclear" is just for the rubes.
The issue "on the table" should be, how many wars can we realistically provoke?
- tom moody 4-19-2006 12:40 am
Just checked the CIA World Factbook entry on Iran for a statistic: population 68.6 million. I noticed that the background blurb completely overlooks the 1953 coup. This goes beyond modesty. Where the hell is their pride in workmanship?
In answer to your question, Tom, the conventional answer has always been: 2. Of course, we've got that many going now. But, if one remembers that Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are all part of the Global War on Islamofascistan, then we've only used up 1 of our 2 wars. And don't forget that Mr. Kim!
The real question is how far the American public will let Bush go. I don't have much hope in the American public at this point. An attack on Iran based on some sort of trumped up bullshit would probably be greated with a rally-round-the-flag response. I doubt Bush would be stupid enough to try to occupy Iran, but I do think he's stupid enough to think bombing them would be a good thing.
- mark 4-19-2006 12:59 am
m berman said today bush won '04 not in spite of aba ghraib but because of it. no reason to have any faith in the american public.
- bill 4-19-2006 1:39 am