३ डिसेंबर, २००७
Is this offensive?
In 1990, there would be no end of outrage over something like this. But it seems that it's considered a good gift for fans of Hillary Clinton, because Amazon has it paired with a Bush out-of-office countdown calendar. It's also #1 on the Amazon Kitchen and Dining bestseller list.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९२ टिप्पण्या:
It would offend me if she performed to "The Dance of the Sugarplum Fairies." This? No.
~~~
Q: By the way, how many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: That's not funny!
That's pretty funny, I think I first saw that item on the daily show or on Stephen Colbert. As a holiday gift item, it's brilliant. Tops on the Amazon seller list?
Don't you ever wish you could create a dumb invention and have it generate that kind of revenue? This is a tough one to really label. If you want to be PC about it, I guess it could be "offensive" to women in that it somewhat demeans the role of women in society in order to take a shot at Hillary Clinton.
On the other hand, it's a depiction of a strong woman and pretty clear to me that she intimidates a certain segment of society. So on that level, maybe it can be seen as a compliment to her success? :)
Next we'll see her face on this product.
You know what's really offensive?
The Bush administration and the Republican presidential candidates have been caught in one of their biggest lies yet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Looks like Joe Leiberman and Cheney won't be able to bomb more brown people after all...
Offensive? nah.
Here's offensive.
V-shaped UHMW cradles which "step" toward cutting head
Cutting head? Yikes!
Offensive? No. Useful? Also no.
Coming soon to a Garage Sale near you.
Christopher says:
Blah, blah, blah...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/
Blah, blah, blah...
Yup, he read it in the New York Times. It must be true!
You should have a 'squirrel with a santa hat' sweater that you could wear for the holiday picture on the blog!
Limbaugh gets a series of complaints from offended women concerning the Hillary Testicle Lockbox.
27 minutes, but entertaining.
(repost, but it was posted late before when the thread was about dead)
The question is what to do about testicles, as a word and as a topic, when feminism is involved.
Presidents are supposed to be tough. You want to know how Hillary will handle leaders of rogue nations? It's right there on Amazon bub. As a talent (even a humorous fake one) I think it beats coming up with inane nicknames for world leaders.
"Looks like Joe Leiberman and Cheney won't be able to bomb more brown people after all..."
Actually, "...it still estimates that they would be technically capable of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon within two years."
Sorry Chris. Looks like we're still gonna' have to bomb 'em.
both the nutcracker and the count down calendar are cute--While the state of the polity--at least the commenting polity--is pretty divided, as long as we maintain a sense of humor, we should be OK.
Re Iran and nukes: wasnt this the same CIA that assured us that Saddam had WMD? And I would like to go on record as being an equal opportunity bomber: no need to restrict it based on color.
Looks like Joe Leiberman and Cheney won't be able to bomb more brown people after all...
Iranians are brown people?
Offensive only to people who don't have a sense of humour or proportion.
Seriouly folks. If you want a really practical Christmas gift that will make you laugh...go for this
http://www.amazon.com/Slingshot-Flying-Monkey-Scream-Sound/dp/B000KE168Q/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1196710857&sr=8-2
I really would like a Hillary ashtray catapult. Bill swears by his. In any case you can't beat Archie McPhee for items like this http://www.mcphee.com/items/11537.html
Damn. I should have ordered one when Mrs. AlphaLiberal first told em about it!
Nutcracker (in this context) is only a small step from "ball buster," an old expression sometimes applied to perpetually angry females who take advantage of their status to act aggressively toward men. It's considered rude, of course, to punch out a loud, obnoxious woman - the weaker sex and all that.
So you see, Fred, it isn't about strength. It's about being obnoxious and hiding behind one's gender to avoid repercussions. I'd say that was appropriate when describing Mrs. Clinton, all of which makes the intended product "message" somewhat ambiguous.
Hey, Ann. How about a post on the NIE showing Iran shelved it's nuclear weapons program?
I'd like to hear the latest rationalization for more war from the wingers.
Not that I want to interrupt the nutcracker discussion.
p.s. Being depicted as a nutcracker is to Hill's benefit.
DBQ,
I like it and think I will get a couple, but for some reason flying screaming monkeys make me think of Congress.
Ruth Anne, do you know feminists don't have a sense of humor? No? I'll hum you a few bars and you can fake it.
Ah, those 80s memories!
Seriously, I second Roger's take on this. Roger that, Roger. It's the usual silly political stuff, and no big deal. Neither this nor Rush's "lockbox" threatn any actual testicles. Calling a woman a ball-buster is just another way to call her a bitch, and that's nothing new. I don't like it, but I expect it in this election. Giuiliani will probably be referred to as a dick more than once over the course of this campaign. We'll all survive.
One never knows. We may live to see the launching of the USS Hillary Rodham Clinton, named after "the most uncompromising wartime president in the history of the United States".
I'd like to hear the latest rationalization for more war from the wingers.
Well look on the bright side. If Hillary! wins, we may just go back to bombing Balkan countries.
Or blowing up asprin factories.
Alpha--
I don't know what to think about the NIE report. Confusing to say the least.
What is your opinion of the recent Israeli air strike against the mysterious site in Syria? Justified?
I'd like to hear the latest rationalization for more war from the wingers.
Gosh, 2003?
What happened in 2003 that might have changed Iran's mind about a nulcear weapons program?
Probably something close by, maybe related to why Libya abandoned their agressive stance at the same time.
Any guesses, AlphaLiberal?
Given the recent Gallup Poll findings that Republicans are significantly more likely to rate their mental health as excellent than Democrats, folks might want to be cautious about sending one of these to a Democrat friend. He or she could take offense!
"What happened in 2003 that might have changed Iran's mind about a nulcear weapons program?
Probably something close by, maybe related to why Libya abandoned their agressive stance at the same time."
So THAT'S the mission that was accomplished.
At the risk of sounding excessivly cynical, has it occurred to some of the readership that intelligence community just may be doing a CYA report? Their track record with respect to Iraq wasnt all that hot, and they just may, perish the thought, be cutting their losses. Bureaucracies have been known to do such things: especially when they can hide behind "consensus."
As Pogo notes, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that Iran took note of the US response in Iraq (and Libya)--esp if, as the NIE suggests, their leaders did a cost-benefit analysis: take care of the immediate danger from the US but retain the option of producing weapons grade material.
What happened in 2003 that might have changed Iran's mind about a nulcear weapons program?
Lisa, I want to buy your rock...
" I want to buy your rock..."
Better to keep using the one you crawled under.
Oh yes, entirely accidental timing. Nothing whatsoever do with it at all. A completely independent decision reached by reasoned Iran, whose same leaders similarly blinked when Reagan was elected over that cowardly lion, JC.
Hey, Ann. How about a post on the NIE showing Iran shelved it's nuclear weapons program? I'd like to hear the latest rationalization for more war from the wingers.
If Iran did indeed end its WMD program then we won't need to attack them. See? Problem solved.
What I really want to hear is an explanation from the so-called "anti-war" folks as to why -- now that the Iraq invasion has been tied to the end of WMD programs in TWO terror-supporting nations (Iran and Libya), the Iraq war was still a bad idea.
Lisa, I want to buy your rock...
Yeah, Josh, I'm sure it was sheer coincidence that an enemy state developing WMDs quit doing so immediately after we invaded their next-door neighbor for developing WMDs. The Iranians probably just woke up one morning and thought "gosh, WMDs are bad! We shouldn't have them.". America had no influence on the decision at all. :)
So THAT'S the mission that was accomplished.
The "Mission" that was "Accomplished" was defeating Iraq and toppling Hussein.
What we've been doing since then is rebuilding the country. That's still a work in progress.
If you guys have some actual evidence that is more than post hoc ergo propter hoc, please provide it. Until you do so you're just asserting as fact what you wish to be true.
same leaders similarly blinked when Reagan was elected over that cowardly lion, JC.
You mean when Reagan negotiated with terrorists and appeased America's enemies? Or maybe the Iranians presciently anticipated that the Reagan admin would sell them weapons and figured releasing the hostages would get them a better price.
Vagina dentata?
It's just as I imagined her.
The unadvertised featured of the Hillary!™ nutcracker is that it also licks your carpets clean.
Josh: of course its a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical issue. I dont' expect the Iranians to inform us they dropped their program because of US military action--and our intel guys apparently don't have enough sources to identify that, nor should they if they did to not compromise a source.
I don't think neither Pogo nor I asserted this as a fact--it is a possibility only. Something to consider: in the real world, the nice, neat logical arguments that work so well when scoring debating points, aren't particularly relevant in the world of national security and international intelligence.
So, assuming the NIE is correct, why in your opinion did Iran defer its program--remembering of course, that any possibility you offer will be suject to the post hoc fallacy.
Not offensive so much as tacky.
george said...
"I don't know what to think about the NIE report. Confusing to say the least."
Quite: We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." 'At a minimum'? What's the maximum? What's the more likely position betwixt?
i see, Roger. if we don't know the cause, we should just assume it's the one that flatters our ideological preferences. Everyone knows stuff like logic and facts don't work in the real world of intelligencifyin' and Tom Clancy novels. Just go with your gut!
Roger,
Sudden enlightenment brought on by a "You can't hug kids with nuclear arms" bumper sticker?
Yeah, Josh, The demise of Saddam's regime by the US military takeover on thier very border played no role at all in Iran's geopolitical calculation. More likely, it was because the cock crowed.
What's the more likely position betwixt?
"We have nothing constructive to say, just obfuscation and CYA so our jobs persist while the Executive changes hands."
They are merely a modern version of the Spartans need to consult the Oracle and the Ephors before war, a ritual without real meaning, intended not to provide actual information, but to establish who is really in charge; the tribute virtue must pay to vice
If you guys have some actual evidence that is more than post hoc ergo propter hoc, please provide it.
Looks like Joshua is probably just Cyrus with a new alias.
Josuha--What is it about the word "possibility" that you dont understand--and you are the one asserting some kind ideological bent that neither Pogo nor I interjected. The world of international states is a complex thing and nation states (pardon the reification fallacy) make decisions for any number of reasons, some of which arent amenable to logic or facts.
You may persist in your contention, but I don't plan to waste any more time interacting with you.
Apparently I am neither a good feminist nor a good American. I don't care about nutcrackers or nukes. I just want to know why anyone would run a fancy-pants, razzle-dazzle reverse in the fourth quarter while they're leading by 3. I realize this doesn't matter, or even make sense, to anyone else commenting in this thread right now. I apologize for my momentary hijack. But it's been bugging me for about 24 hours now.
So Iran gave up its WMD program due to the invasion of Iraq to quash its WMD program that Iran knew didn't exist.
Weren't they afraid they would [then] get invaded too?
You're right garage.
Iran dismantled their nuclear program (well, maybe not, according to intel) because, aside from hanging gay men, stoning hundreds of women of various ages to death, physical and psychological torture and killing of political prisoners, and hanging a 16-year-old schoolgirl (in Neka, Aug. 15, 2004), for "acts incompatible with chastity,"
aside from that, Iran's just a regular country -just like us!- that just wants to get along -just like us!- and want s to be friends with its neighbors -just like us!- except Israel, which of course must be wiped off the map -just like us!.
Dr. Pellagrino: [after staring at Allison's vagina for the gynecology appointment] Wow, you do look like your sister!
(Knocked Up 2007)
Alpha:I'd like to hear the latest rationalization for more war from the wingers.
Not looking for more war, unless its necessary, as with Iraq.
Are you pleased that, according to an NIE you cherry-pick from, Iran is giving up its nukes? Or is all this only a tool for you to score cheap political shots with? Where are your priorities?
And why do you agree with NIE's only when they support your own position?
Beth:
A trick play when run to perfection can be brilliant and can help put a game away. The best example I know if is the play that put Cincinnati into the 1991 Super Bowl. They were playing the Buffalo Bills and were up by six in the fourth quarter. Fourth and about six, at midfield and Buffalo had been finding its rhythm and the Cincinnati defense, never the Bengals' strong point, was plainly tired.
So coach Sam Wyche called for a fake punt (ironically called a 'Buffalo Punt') and it worked, they got the first down. Cincy drove on down the field and scored, and ran enough time off the clock so that the Bills couldn't score twice after that.
The bigger problem is that the Saints were obviously overrated coming into this season. They had a dream season last year, but the truth is, they just aren't that good.
I believe that Iran probably is getting nukes.
So what? History teaches that we can survive a nuclear armed opponent, and people who honestly think that we can stop anyone from developing sixty year old technology (including uranium enrichment) is delusional.
The Soviet Union had nukes, and we beat them not by going to war with them, but by trading with them. When their people there decided they liked what we had better than what they had, all those nukes didn't do them a spitwad worth of good.
"It isn't like I came down from Mount Sinai with the tabloids."
-Former Indianapolis Colts coach Ron Meyer
Isn't it a bit odd that the Cheney-Bush Administration would not have released this NIE a year ago, when it was completed, if it vindicates their Iraq invasion and occupation?
A more likely explanation is that the IAEA and international pressure, then at work, stopped Iran. Also, A.Q. Khan was being persecuted around that time, so their world was getting rocked.
--------
p.s. Think Ann will post on National Review's fabulist after several posts on Beauchamp? And she wonders why she's considered a conservative!
Pogo
Even in your most fevered moments, do you think there is the slimmest chance Iran plans to "wipe Israel off the map", with Israel's 200 nukes pointed at them. They couldn't get a missile 500 feet off the ground before they would get razed. And you should also take comfort if Israel was somehow completely sleeping at the wheel, we have Destroyers parked off their coast with nuclear tipped missiles that could do it even shorter time.
So what? History teaches that we can survive a nuclear armed opponent
I'm endlessly amused at the Left's newfound love for Mutually Assured Destruction. I must have imagined the whole nuclear disarmament movement of the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
Anyway, Eli, what history teaches us is that we can reach a mostly with a rival superpower provided that both sides willing and able to accept the conditions of mutually assured destruction. That scenario doesn't apply here.
Furthermore, history also shows us that the rival nuclear power is then free to do anything it wants so long as it doesn't provoke us to the point where we're willing to start a nuclear war with them. During the Cold War that meant around two billion people enslaved by Communism, a hundred million dead, and tens of trillions of dollars spent opposing them and propping up nasty regimes around the world to do so.
In other words, Eli, history teaches us that destroying enemy attempts to acquire nukes -- by any means necessary -- is almost always the smart play.
and people who honestly think that we can stop anyone from developing sixty year old technology (including uranium enrichment) is delusional.
Oh, that explains why every nation that wants nukes has them now.
No, wait -- that's not true at all. In reality, Iran still lacks nuclear weapons despite the fact that it has been trying to get them since the Shah was in power. North Korea's been trying for fifty years and their bombs still don't work right. Iraq tried for at least twenty years and they didn't succeed either. Apparently it isn't the trivial task you believe it to be.
Even in your most fevered moments, do you think there is the slimmest chance Iran plans to "wipe Israel off the map", with Israel's 200 nukes pointed at them.
Why do you assume the rulers of Iran would mind being killed by the Israeli retaliation? They say they wouldn't. They'll go straight to paradise, after all.
Your entire argument -- and Eli's, too -- is based on the premise that Iran is ruled by rational people who place a high premium on their own lives. There is no evidence supporting that premise.
Hey Ann, why aren't you doing more to help advance the agenda of christopher, AlphaLiberal, and the guy muttering outside my window?
You neocon, you!
(Did you hear the sneer I typed when I pressed the n button, followed by the e button, and an extended press of the ooooooooooooooo button? I did it for emphasis!)
revenant:
I take it then that you are one of the morons who wanted us to invade Russia after WWII, when the whole world was absolutely sick of war? You and Pat Buchanan.
Frankly the Soviet Union would have gone sooner if the trade that we began with them in the 1970's had started sooner.
Q: Which two old line communist states still are around and kicking with an unreformed Stalinist doctrine? A: Cuba and North Korea, on whom we've had a trade embargo for a combined century.
And I never said that acquiring nukes was 'trivial,' anymore than the Manhattan project was trivial for us.
What I said was that if someone wants nukes then we in the end won't be able to stop them. North Korea, Pakistan and India for example.
"Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
(Joe Theismann, ESPN)
revenant:
The mullahs that run Iran (Ahmadinenut, like all elected Presidents there, are not the real power), if conservative and fundamentalist have never suggested that they plan to follow a path of national suicide.
The biggest problem the Iranians have is that 2/3 of their population was born since the revolution, have no memory of the Shah or generally of Khomeini and they don't like living in an Islamic society. I'd say confront the mullahs head-on. Open trade, let commercialism flow and let little Mohammed aspire to go to Disneyland Tehran instead of blowing himself up on a train.
Is Disneyland Tehran modeled after Disneyland Saudi Arabia, or Disneyland Qatar?
"I take it then that you are one of the morons who wanted us to invade Russia after WWII, when the whole world was absolutely sick of war? You and Pat Buchanan."
Interesting. So you feel postponing a possible war until Russia could get nukes was more than worth all those people dying over the years. It was moronic, in your view to think Russia might be our worst enemy in that near future. And the people who were really at fault for all those people dying behind the iron curtain was the US for not trading with them. Got it.
The fact is, egmaticore, that our best weapons are capitalism:
McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Disney, MTV.
We saw how first Levis, and then the rest of them were instrumental in bringing down the iron curtain.
With goods follow ideas.
It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives, who love to preach about the free market when they are opposing any kind of a domestic government program, continually favor military solutions over free-market solutions when it comes to foreign policy.
Jeff:
Life isn't a RISK game where you play until you conquer the world.
After WWII, whole countries were destroyed, whole populations were starving, and more war wasn't in our own interest OR the world's interest.
And yes, they got nukes. So what? They never used them, as did we, and millions of lives were thereby saved.
Eli Blake said...
"Q: Which two old line communist states still are around and kicking with an unreformed Stalinist doctrine? A: Cuba and North Korea, on whom we've had a trade embargo for a combined century."
I'm inclined to agree with that. It's long past time to recognize certain realities: embargo hasn't worked and isn't going to start any time soon. We ought to start with permitting bilateral trade in purely civilian goods, not because we've abandoned our commitment to toppling those regimes but because present policy has so clearly failed to achieve that goal. If a policy isn't working and can't coherently be supposed that it will start working, you either change the means or change the ends.
I take it then that you are one of the morons who wanted us to invade Russia after WWII, when the whole world was absolutely sick of war?
The whole world was "absolutely sick of war" in the 1930s, too. That's why they let the Axis come to power in the first place; they had no balls to stand up to them while it still could have been done easily. Was it politically possible to topple the USSR in 1945? No, it wasn't, for the reasons to cite above and various others. Would the world today be happier and better-off, with less poverty and a lot fewer gravestones, if we had? Absolutely.
You play up the years of Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction like they were a great state of affairs. Needless to say, anyone who isn't a complete moron recognizes that the situation we were stuck in during WW2 wasn't one we arrived at by choice. We were stuck in that situation because the only alternative was global nuclear war. This time around we have more choices than "allow our enemies to thrive for 45 years" and "kill everyone on the entire planet".
Frankly the Soviet Union would have gone sooner if the trade that we began with them in the 1970's had started sooner.
What an amusingly moronic thing to believe. We didn't defeat the Soviets by trading with them; we defeated them by outspending them. They couldn't afford the costs associated with keeping up with us as a rival superpower. That meant either abandoning hardline Communism or abandoning the MAD policy and accepting American dominance. They tried for the former and got the latter. They would NOT have collapsed sooner if we'd helped enrich them in the 1970s -- entirely the opposite.
You're also ignoring the fact that our once-bad trade relations with China and the USSR were almost entirely caused by those countries' internal policies, specifically their artificial exchange rates and command-driven economies.
Q: Which two old line communist states still are around and kicking with an unreformed Stalinist doctrine? A: Cuba and North Korea, on whom we've had a trade embargo for a combined century.
They're hardline communist, but irrelevant. China, on the other hand, is as much our enemy now as it was during the Mao years, and a good deal more of a threat. Liberalizing their economy allowed them to sustain their military/police state indefinitely. It is by no means obvious that helping China become a successful and thriving authoritarian nuclear power was preferable to letting them calcify and collapse like the Soviets did.
What I said was that if someone wants nukes then we in the end won't be able to stop them.
Killing people stops them quite effectively. It is amazing how seldom dead people manage to build nuclear weapons.
North Korea, Pakistan and India for example.
Pakistan and India acquired nuclear weapons during the Cold War, when -- as I noted earlier -- our ability to accomplish anything internationally was crippled by the threat of mutually assured destruction. North Korea -- again, as I noted earlier -- still hasn't got its nukes working correctly.
Let me fix some bad editing.
Eli, other than christopher, who ever said I am a conservative?
"The fact is, egmaticore, that our best weapons are capitalism"
Two rejoinders. 1) Inherent in the idea that capitalism is a weapon is the fact that capitalism can be a destructive force. Weapons destroy. It would be great to have it destroy only what we want, but sometimes there is significant collateral damage. In general, I agree that capitalism is a positive, though. But it also has some downsides that can be exploited by demogogues-- and mullahs can press those buttons pretty well.
2) Capitalism is not a panacea. My point about Saudi Arabia is merely that those who think we just spread a little Mickey-Ds and some Coca-Cola and we'll be able to teach the world to sing (in perfect harmony) are not really understanding the culture in the Islamic world. There is a reason there is no Disneyworld Saudi Arabia, or Disneyworld Egypt.
Exporting capitalism is a grand idea, and one I support. But if you think for a minute that it will solve the problem with Jihad, I think you are gravely mistaken.
The mullahs that run Iran (Ahmadinenut, like all elected Presidents there, are not the real power), if conservative and fundamentalist have never suggested that they plan to follow a path of national suicide.
Khomeni did. The people running the place now were his disciples and still hold him in enormous regard as a religious leader. Do you have some actual evidence that they disagree with his belief that sacrificing *some* Muslims to kill *all* the Israelis was a good idea, or are you just taking it on blind faith?
Why do you assume the rulers of Iran would mind being killed by the Israeli retaliation? They say they wouldn't. They'll go straight to paradise, after all.
They haven't thus far, why would they now? Besides, sounds like Israel's problem, not ours.
[after learning of the Doomsday Machine]
President Merkin Muffley: But this is absolute madness, Ambassador! Why should you *build* such a thing?
Ambassador de Sadesky: There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.
President Merkin Muffley: This is preposterous. I've never approved of anything like that.
Ambassador de Sadesky: Our source was the New York Times.
(Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb 1964)
They haven't thus far, why would they now?
They haven't got the capacity to destroy Israel -- yet.
Sacrificing your life to destroy the enemies of Islam is generally seen as virtuous. Sacrificing your life for the heck of it is, so far as I'm aware, not.
Besides, sounds like Israel's problem, not ours.
They're a terrorist nation. That makes it ours, too.
History teaches that we can survive a nuclear armed opponent
I think thats short-sighted. Your reasoning is similar to that which created the Maginot Line - preparing for the next war by basing your strategy on the last.
We know Iraq farmed out its chemical WMD programs to Sudan and its nuclear WMD program to Libya. We also know that Iran prefers to attack with proxy [no MAD deterrant if you can pull off an anonymous or proxy attack]. I don't think it takes great imagination to that Iran might follow the lessons it learned from the Iraq/UN inspections catastrophe by relocating its programs out of country while its under international scrutiny:
Dan Riehl: "I don't find it [the NIE] the least bit reassuring. I can't get too excited about the NIE given the recent bombing of what's now being called a nuclear bomb factory in Syria. If those reports are accurate, it would make sense for Iran to be doing a rope-a-dope with facilities such as Natanz.
If, as is suspected, North Korea and Iran are behind the effort in Syria, Iran doesn't have to build a bomb and they already have the rockets. They could have a Syrian assembled bomb in hours once one were constructed. If they've outsourced that aspect of an effort to obtain a bomb, suspending their own effort while giving the IAEA and the US fits would make perfect sense."
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/12/how-i-learned-t.html
The Soviet Union had nukes, and we beat them not by going to war with them, but by trading with them
But we DID go to war with them - not directly like the battles of WW2, but by challenging their spread into Africa, Asia and South America.
not by going to war with them, but by trading with them
Too simplistic. We won by doing both those things, amoung others.
But we DID go to war with them - not directly like the battles of WW2, but by challenging their spread into Africa, Asia and South America.
We also directly fought their proxies in Korea and Vietnam, and they directly fought ours in other nations (e.g. Afghanistan). The stalemate in Korea and the loss of Vietnam were mostly due to our inability to risk a direct battlefield confrontation with the Soviets -- so long as the Soviets made it clear that they wouldn't accept a decisive loss, we had no choice but to try for a "tie".
Then there's the fact that the current state of Iran and Iraq is entirely the result of the Cold War stalemate. Detante is the gift that keeps on giving...
HEY GUYS, DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THAT HILARY NUTCRACKER THING?
Yeah, I did. Pretty offensive if you asked me.
Not really.
"And yes, they got nukes. So what? They never used them, as did we, and millions of lives were thereby saved."
So you are using data available now to condemn people with only access to the data available then. Ok.
And in your world, not using their nukes meant lives were saved and the hell with all those thousands who did die. Alrighty then.
Some of you need to squidge your piles, and others of you have nurdled your winks.
So you are using data available now to condemn people with only access to the data available then. Ok.
The best part is his implication that the Soviets were morally superior and pacifistic compared to us because, you know, they never actually USED their nukes.
Sheesh. Whenever I start to think that maybe the American school system isn't as bad as it is made out to be, some tool like Eli comes along.
"Q: By the way, how many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: That's not funny!"
I recall always hearing the joke as "how many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
I think it funnier that way, but undoubtedly as a heterosexual white male Republican (yeah, I know, redundant...) my opinion is an all-too-obvious manifestation of my hetero-normative, sexist upbringing.
Oh, and judgmental too!
Besides, sounds like Israel's problem, not ours.
This is another line of reasoning I don't understand. Twice now the world has barely dodged a thermo-nuclear war between India and Pakistan that likely would have also brought Chineese and Russian nukes into play. Why would anyone believe that such a nuclear exchange would not have negative effects back in the US? Same applies to any overt Iranian/Israeli exchange.
I also don't understand why enviro's don't champion anti-proliferation policy more agressively. In the US, they are against nuclear plants because of concerns re security, safety and waste disposal. Yet for some reason, they are agnostic re the effects a nuclear exchange in the ME would have on the global climate.
"The stalemate in Korea and the loss of Vietnam were mostly due to our inability to risk a direct battlefield confrontation with the Soviets -- so long as the Soviets made it clear that they wouldn't accept a decisive loss, we had no choice but to try for a "tie"."
Sorley makes the case, overwhelmingly, we won the Vietnamese War, save but for congressional Democrats who refused to fund the democratically elected government of South Vietnam and would not permit Ford to authorize the use of U.S. air power in the spring of 1975. This history was revised even before it was written to conform with prevailing popular opinion on the war.
I don't have much use for a nutcracker, but I'd sure buy a Hillary bench vise - the same kind she uses on certain parts of Bill's anatomy.
Revenant: Then there's the fact that the current state of Iran and Iraq is entirely the result of the Cold War stalemate. Detante is the gift that keeps on giving
Echo Somolia/Ethiopia. In fact, the majority of post-Cold War conflicts around the world can be traced back to the US/Soviet conflict, with the US choosing the "lesser of two evils" by supporting Iraq against Iran, pacific rim against Vietnam and N Korea, etc.
Rev is spot on: Patton was right. If we had the fortitude to handle the Soviets when we had experienced vets in Europe, the world would be a much better place today. Esp Africa.
Jeez, the old MAD world, revised, sounds so safe & comfy & cozy, why don't we just give everybody on earth their own family thermonuclear device?
Especially since we always know the future, just like we did then!
Especially since we always know the future, just like we did then!
Don't forget that the people singing the "who cares if the mullahs have nukes" song are largely the same ones who wet themselves at the thought of Americans owning ordinary firearms. "Reality based community" my ass.
Damn. Fen beat me to it. But:
I take it then that you are one of the morons who wanted us to invade Russia after WWII, when the whole world was absolutely sick of war? You and Pat Buchanan.
Patton was a moron?
It was never gonna happen, politically, but it's not hard to imagine that it would've made the world a better place than what resulted from Yalta.
Gotta imagine the same thing with Schwarzkopf and Gulf War I.
Shannon Love's analysis dovetails nicely with other comments on here:
"My cursory reading of the report suggest that Iran has just moth balled its nuke project and can restart it in short order once the heat is off. For conspiracy theorists I would point out that a lot of that heat comes from credible saber rattling and having two armies parked on either side of Iran. Keeping the pressure on Iran is exactly the right thing to do. I suspect they are waiting for a change in the winds like a democrat President or a shift in European leaders to a more pacifistic stance. They only need a window of year or two of dithering to make their nukes a fait accompli"
/via instapundit
All I want for Christmas is a Bill Clinton type of cigar humidor.
Frankly, I don't think she has the thighs for it.
I've seen worse:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/photos/
uncategorized/2007/10/19/hillary20clinton.jpg
http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/
uploads/2007/10/hill691.jpg
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा