Playing With Fire
So Iran has decided to play chicken by announcing that it will proceeed with its nuclear ambitions, anyway, probably perceiving an American administration that is hogtied militarily by the Iraqi insurgency next door and politically by the Bush-hating BAFAWs (i.e. Blame-America-First/Anti-War crowd) here at home.
But they're playing with fire, both in their endeavors to stoke uranium and in their daring of the administration to do anything about it, because both the Iraqi insurgents and the American BAFAWs are essentially just bomb-throwing pests who have failed to derail the locomotion of the administration's 3-D agenda for the Middle East: Disarmament, Democratization, and Domestication.
Indeed, we had Rummy come out just the other day saying that Iranian fingerprints were all over the weapons used by the Iraqi insurgents, which means...
Yes, of course, and it will inspire another round of second-guessing and conniptions from the BAFAWs, accusing the administration of--via Rummy-- cooking up more political rationales to justify a pre-ordained attack on yet another oil-rich Middle Eastern country, and blah-blah-blah.
Just ignore them. They--the BAFAWs--are just making a lot of fool noise right now and cooking up their own political rationales in order to set the stage and justify a pre-ordained Impeachment march on Washington in September.
They're pulling all sorts of stunts. They've got an emotion-exploiting sideshow going on now with a woman whose son was killed in Iraq and is now camping out outside of Crawford demanding the President meet with her a SECOND time (after she described the president's demeanor at the first meeting in unflattering terms).
Keep your eye on the ball, people. We have a war to win (or a "struggle," whatever).
Anyway, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--Iran's new president who they say was an adviser behind the 1979 hostage-taking that helped doom the feckless President Carter's bid for a second term (Republicus is fairly certain that he's not the same man in the photographs, but not absolutely sure)-- must have figured the same thing (i.e. that Rummy was building a case for an attack) and quickly started making mealy-mouthed assurances to U.N. Secretary General Koffi Annan just yesterday on the heels of his nuclear announcement, saying that he has all sorts of new initiatives and proposals that will put everyone at ease!
Good job, Mahmout. Run to Coffi for cover just like Saddam did (pre-Bolton).
No means no, Mahmout.
God knows they have enough petroleum to see to their energy needs (and if they REALLY want to make friends with us, they should give Halliburton a contract and invite them in to do some serious drilling).
But if they insist, say hello to our lil' fren' the cruise missile, and say "buh-bye" to the Isfahan plant.
It would be unwise to allow the Iranians to possess enriched uranium at this juncture.
But they're playing with fire, both in their endeavors to stoke uranium and in their daring of the administration to do anything about it, because both the Iraqi insurgents and the American BAFAWs are essentially just bomb-throwing pests who have failed to derail the locomotion of the administration's 3-D agenda for the Middle East: Disarmament, Democratization, and Domestication.
Indeed, we had Rummy come out just the other day saying that Iranian fingerprints were all over the weapons used by the Iraqi insurgents, which means...
Yes, of course, and it will inspire another round of second-guessing and conniptions from the BAFAWs, accusing the administration of--via Rummy-- cooking up more political rationales to justify a pre-ordained attack on yet another oil-rich Middle Eastern country, and blah-blah-blah.
Just ignore them. They--the BAFAWs--are just making a lot of fool noise right now and cooking up their own political rationales in order to set the stage and justify a pre-ordained Impeachment march on Washington in September.
They're pulling all sorts of stunts. They've got an emotion-exploiting sideshow going on now with a woman whose son was killed in Iraq and is now camping out outside of Crawford demanding the President meet with her a SECOND time (after she described the president's demeanor at the first meeting in unflattering terms).
Keep your eye on the ball, people. We have a war to win (or a "struggle," whatever).
Anyway, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--Iran's new president who they say was an adviser behind the 1979 hostage-taking that helped doom the feckless President Carter's bid for a second term (Republicus is fairly certain that he's not the same man in the photographs, but not absolutely sure)-- must have figured the same thing (i.e. that Rummy was building a case for an attack) and quickly started making mealy-mouthed assurances to U.N. Secretary General Koffi Annan just yesterday on the heels of his nuclear announcement, saying that he has all sorts of new initiatives and proposals that will put everyone at ease!
Good job, Mahmout. Run to Coffi for cover just like Saddam did (pre-Bolton).
No means no, Mahmout.
God knows they have enough petroleum to see to their energy needs (and if they REALLY want to make friends with us, they should give Halliburton a contract and invite them in to do some serious drilling).
But if they insist, say hello to our lil' fren' the cruise missile, and say "buh-bye" to the Isfahan plant.
It would be unwise to allow the Iranians to possess enriched uranium at this juncture.
posted by John | 5:50 AM
10 Comments:
lol Thank you, J. Good man. I'll return the courtesy. Peace.
Thank you Amy. :)
lol Well, the good host of the multi-faceted Gothamimage bar cheerfully allows his establishment to morph from whispering French Bistro to loud Greek Taverna to rowdy Roadhouse.
(at least when he doesn't fall into a neurotic fit and pretentiously start reciting poetry, obsessively nitpicking on flippant trivialities, and censoring)
No, J., I meant you see that other side of me at Gotham PRECISELY because it morphs into a rowdy roadhouse at times (thank goodness: W.C. was modeling it after a Georgetown salon full of tea-sipping grand dames, doyennes, and dandies).
Believe it or not, J., what mainline conservatives would describe about me as "libertine" are actually manifestations of Libertarisanism wrapped around my conservate traits like a helix.
i.e. I'm registered Independent, think Libertarian, and vote Republican (although I would think my own moral sensibilities--sympathetic with the conservative bourgois, in theory if not in practice-- would be frowned upon by Libertarian purists).
e.g. it would be immoral for a government to sanction easy access by its citizenry to ANY good or service in demand for the purposes of self-indulgence. I mean, you can pretty much find what you want, anyway, but I don't think the federal government should bestow its blessing upon, say, heroin transactions in the name of Liberty.
I would think that a Libertarian government would only go so far as issuing some sort of "Buyer Beware" statement and then wash its hands of any consequences against a population that can never be 100% educated and self-disciplined enough to avoid the pitfalls of vice.
Interestingly, that is precisely what the Judeo-Christian God did in Eden, and there have been plenty of theological debates questioning the "goodness" of a God who did that (i.e. place a fruit within reach with a warning label on it that says: "This is gonna feel great once eaten, but it's going to kill ya!").
Some God-critics mutter, "Why didn't God just spare us the grief and remove the temptation?"
Well, there's been profound arguments about that over the millennia, but a main point is that God had to sustain our Freedom of Choice and the power to pursue our own destinies.
I don't think governments are obliged to follow that example.
In other words, when it comes to stuff like heroin, "Keep out of reach of children!"
I respect the Libertarian principle, but, as James said on your blog, too much Freedom can be dangerous.
Thank you for the invitation, Joe, but I'll have to pass for now.
John,
Excellent blog. I really appreciated your comments on J's blog and I think we were able to point out some important issues without going to the GothamImage rowdy style. You have inspired me. Maybe I should start a blog of my own just for Libertarian debates! While we do not agree on everything, a measured approach to debate without the 'ad hominem' attacks goes a long way to making political discussion viable. Keep it up!
JB
Ah, Phelonius! Thank you.
I devote the next post to Mrs. Sheehan, Amy.
Post a Comment
<< Home