The Last Argument of Kings [Dave at Garfield Ridge]

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg has a piece criticizing the Israeli Prime Minister for not playing nice with the Obama Administration.

I'll leave aside Goldberg's main argument-- he has a fair point that this is a high-risk strategy by Netanyahu-- but instead focus on why Netanyahu may feel compelled to pursue this strategy now.

In general, I notice that pieces discussing the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel and the West fail to note the most salient concern: Iran never has to use the Bomb for it to work.

Even if we assume Tehran isn’t led by an irrational apocalyptic regime – wanna bet?– the popular "smart take" from the Beltway bandits is, “the U.S. and Israel can deter Iran from using nuclear weapons, just as we’ve deterred the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea.”

True, if Iran's leaders are indeed now and always shall be rational actors.

But guess what? Deterrence works both ways: a nuclear Iran will also deter *us*.

Immediately, the threat of regime change will be permanently off the table, just as it is with every other nuclear state. Imagine a world where North Korea and Pakistan never acquired nuclear weapons, and appreciate the freedom of action the United States and its allies no longer has with respect to those two nations. Once a regime has nuclear weapons, forget regime change; even run-of-the-mill gunboat diplomacy is no longer credible. You're left with a weak hand of diplomatic measures and half-hearted economic sanctions. Ask the Ukrainians how that's helping them right now.

Overnight, a nuclear Iran will be able to extend its nuclear umbrella over all of its terrorist operations abroad, whether in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, the Gulf, or elsewhere, and the West won’t do anything about it.

After all, we don’t risk war with Iran over their terrorism today, when we are strongest and they are non-nuclear; we surely won’t risk war against a nuclear Tehran. Just as we don't against any other nuclear power. Indeed, nuclear weapons are Ultima Ratio Regum.

Meanwhile, Israel– populated as it is by a smart and wealthy people (read: mobile)– will inevitably and inexorably empty out as its citizens realize that there is no safety in deterrence. A nuclear Iran may be reasonable today– again, wanna bet?– but there are no guarantees that a future ayatollah won’t roll the dice on Armageddon.

Bottom line: Iran never needs to use nuclear weapons to be a mortal threat; it just needs them, period.

---
This post has been approved for posting outside of openblogging hours. This post represents the personal opinions of the author.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:52 AM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 An electricity free Iran is a helpless Iran.

Posted by: NaCly Dog at January 28, 2015 09:54 AM (u82oZ)

2 1

Posted by: DaveA at January 28, 2015 09:55 AM (DL2i+)

3 Bottom line: Iran never needs to use nuclear weapons to be a mortal threat; it just needs them, period.

Yup.

Here's the thing with rational actor analysis. You have to determine if the action is rational within that other person's framework.

If your goal is to bring about Armageddon, using a nuke is a perfectly rational choice. It is irrelevant if the West thinks that goal is insane. If that is the goal, what rational steps will be taken to get there.

Gah. I really need to start daytime drinking.

Posted by: alexthechick - My preeecciiiooouuusss at January 28, 2015 09:55 AM (mf5HN)

4 Deterrence is a flawed delaying tactic only workable with 2 similar, rational opponents.

Tehran may just put them on goat carts, walk into the major oilfields and demand the Saudis turn over Mecca.

Posted by: DaveA at January 28, 2015 09:58 AM (DL2i+)

5 Iran repeatedly says it intends to destroy Israel and murder all of it's citizens. A nuclear weapon will be an excellent tool for the purpose, maybe the only possible tool.

Citizens can argue these points but the Obama foreign policy MUST be founded on the expectation Iran means to do what it so often says it will do, and the Obama administration MUST prevent the Iranians from getting the bomb. Any other approach indicates a deliberate willingness to see the second Holocaust happen.

Posted by: MTF at January 28, 2015 10:01 AM (FCsIb)

6 Our foreign policy is held hostage to Barry's hurt feelings. We're boned.

Posted by: toby928(C) Pale Penis Person at January 28, 2015 10:02 AM (evdj2)

7 The latest news is that the Obamanites are actively trying to undermine the election of Netanyahu. He should deport the agent they sent over for that.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2015 10:03 AM (wlDny)

8 You boobs never read my book huh?

Posted by: The Almighty at January 28, 2015 10:03 AM (XzRw1)

9 "I really need to start daytime drinking"

Been doing it for years. Works great.

Posted by: anon a mouse at January 28, 2015 10:03 AM (/jpU8)

10 Wait, we have openblogging hours?

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented at January 28, 2015 10:03 AM (DT3rQ)

11
I fully expect a nuclear war in our lifetimes. And it won't be Armageddon.

We grew up in the bipolar world of Mutually Assured Desctruction, so we grew up with the idea that nuclear war is simply inconceivable.

But the nuclear club isn't just the original five anymore. India and Pakistan have nukes and a history of border skirmishes. Someone, somewhere, is going to be crazy and nuke someone. If that someone can, it will nuke back.

And it will be horrible and the world's sensibilities will be shocked and everything will change. But it won't end up in world annihilation and the world will go on, now as an even more sucky place in which nuclear war is a thing that *can* happen.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at January 28, 2015 10:04 AM (JtwS4)

12 "Last argument of Kings" -- wasn't that World War One?

Posted by: Bigby's Shadow Puppets at January 28, 2015 10:04 AM (3ZtZW)

13 Progressives WANT a nuclear Iran ... as a deterrent to Israel and the USA.

I truly believe it's that simple.

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 28, 2015 10:04 AM (HpeUK)

14 Obama admin is the most anti semitic admin since ...I don't know, FDR's?

Posted by: votermom at January 28, 2015 10:05 AM (cbfNE)

15 "Our foreign policy is held hostage to the Pundit classes hurt feelings"

FIFY

Posted by: anon a mouse at January 28, 2015 10:05 AM (/jpU8)

16 But I still get my free shit right?

Posted by: FSA at January 28, 2015 10:05 AM (1vYi0)

17 >>>Been doing it for years. Works great.

No pro-tips?

Posted by: Bigby's Shadow Puppets at January 28, 2015 10:06 AM (3ZtZW)

18 Wait, we have openblogging hours?"

Only on days ending in "y"

Posted by: anon a mouse at January 28, 2015 10:06 AM (/jpU8)

19 13 Progressives WANT a nuclear Iran ... as a deterrent to Israel and the USA.

I truly believe it's that simple.
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 28, 2015 10:04 AM (HpeUK)

ValJar wants an Iranian caliphate to rise again, aided by Bumbles the stooge

Posted by: MikeH at January 28, 2015 10:06 AM (ZdA3v)

20 Do we have the threat of regime change on the table *today*?

No.

Posted by: HoboJerk, The State Loves You at January 28, 2015 10:06 AM (FA3Z7)

21 Well
If Iran doesn't need to use nukes, then take it to the next step. They don't need to have nukes, just make the claim they do. Who would want to call that bluff? Especially if you share a border with Iran.

Posted by: Ned Grunchlk at January 28, 2015 10:06 AM (TWr4e)

22 No pro-tips?"

It's called a "flask". Been around for a few centuries...

Posted by: anon a mouse at January 28, 2015 10:07 AM (/jpU8)

23 Is openblogging like open line Friday?

Posted by: Edmund Burke's Shade at January 28, 2015 10:07 AM (cmBvC)

24 In a sane world, many nukes makes you a Power, just a few makes you a Target.

Posted by: toby928(C) Pale Penis Person at January 28, 2015 10:07 AM (evdj2)

25 >>>Progressives WANT a nuclear Iran ... as a deterrent to Israel and the USA

Well, they want a Caliphate too. They figure somebody with authority to speak on behalf of all muslims and enforce agreements is the way to go. Of course they have no idea the nightmare they'll unleash if it comes about.

Posted by: Bigby's Shadow Puppets at January 28, 2015 10:09 AM (3ZtZW)

26 11 -

Yep. A world where modern technology, and free markets no longer exist because the savages have managed to blast us (those who remain, that is) back to the Stone Age.

This may be a nightmare scenario for the West, but it sure sounds an awful lot like the typical Sunday sermon being preached in mosques all around the world.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 28, 2015 10:10 AM (TOk1P)

27 You'd think that Iran announcing its plans to wipe Israel off the map several times might be reason enough to not help them get nukes.
Seems when people threaten to kill you, you should listen?

Posted by: Lizzy at January 28, 2015 10:10 AM (ABcz/)

28 >>But guess what? Deterrence works both ways: a nuclear Iran will also deter *us*.

Obama has taken this to the next level. We seem to be deterred from doing anything against Iran because of the threat that they might get a nuke.

If their goal is to dominate the Middle East they are well on their way.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 28, 2015 10:11 AM (g1DWB)

29 To quote myself from yesterday: I have a serious question. When are we going to fuck up Iran? It's a pissant country with an economy the size of North Carolina which is completely dependent on an export that has to ship by tanker or pipeline and with no formidable allies. How is it that we have put up with their trouble-making for three and half decades?!?

Posted by: toby928(C) Pale Penis Person at January 28, 2015 10:12 AM (evdj2)

30 Seems when people threaten to kill you, you should listen?

Posted by: Lizzy at January 28, 2015 10:10 AM (ABcz/)

They did not listen to schikelgruber, why should they listen to the ayatollahs?

Posted by: GMB - Tyrant 2nd Class at January 28, 2015 10:12 AM (Vyg9x)

31 >>>It's called a "flask". Been around for a few centuries...

No kidding? You ever wash it out?

Posted by: Bigby's Shadow Puppets at January 28, 2015 10:12 AM (3ZtZW)

32 By the way, a Dave at Garfield Ridge sighting at the ol' AoSHQ is much more welcome than some "other" person's homecoming, that's for sure.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 28, 2015 10:12 AM (TOk1P)

33 No kidding? You ever wash it out? "

Hell no.

My coffee cup neither...

Posted by: anon a mouse at January 28, 2015 10:13 AM (/jpU8)

34 Gah. I really need to start daytime drinking.
Posted by: alexthechick - My preeecciiiooouuusss at January 28, 2015 09:55 AM

Wait...you mean you haven't yet?!

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at January 28, 2015 10:13 AM (knoK7)

35 Seems when people threaten to kill you, you should listen?

When the people you're counting on to handle things think they know what people intend better than those other people themselves, things can get rather tragi-farcical.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented at January 28, 2015 10:13 AM (DT3rQ)

36 Wow. After a coupla centuries I bet this "flask" item is kinda moldy

Posted by: Bigby's Shadow Puppets at January 28, 2015 10:14 AM (3ZtZW)

37 I still do not quite understand why the Israeli's have not taken action. They have the most to lose, and once a mobile nuke is in Iranian hands, there will be nothing that can be done.

Posted by: Edmund Burke's Shade at January 28, 2015 10:14 AM (cmBvC)

38 Barack Obama is a SCOAMT.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at January 28, 2015 10:14 AM (M1uf/)

39 Mohammedanism is an evil death cult.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at January 28, 2015 10:14 AM (M1uf/)

40 I've been making this same point for years. Just *HAVING* nukes is a complete regional game changer, because every time Iran engages in some OTHER form of foreign policy adventurism (ie meddling in Iraq, Syria, etc), there is always that "what if"?

Imagine a group of people. Now we give one of them a gun. The person who has the gun doesn't actually have to FIRE it to alter the behavior of the others or get his way. In fact, he doesn't necessarily even have to THREATEN to fire it. . . .that's implied.

I should also add that the same groups that don't want civilians to own weapons, seem to have no problem with a malevolent terrorism-sponsoring regime like Iran (ie the State equivalent of a convicted murderer) having nuclear weapons.

Permitting this regime to have nukes is beyond crazy. Iran has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel (the "little Satan"), using such terms as "wipe it off the map", etc. Its STATE MOTTO is "Death to America". With its terrorist history, do we really need THIS group to have nuclear arms?

Posted by: looking closely at January 28, 2015 10:14 AM (6Q9g2)

41 You'd think that Iran announcing its plans to wipe Israel off the map several times might be reason enough to not help them get nukes.
Seems when people threaten to kill you, you should listen?
Posted by: Lizzy at January 28, 2015 10:10 AM

You'd almost be forgiven for thinking that when statists mouth the words 'never again' that they aren't quite sincere....

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at January 28, 2015 10:15 AM (knoK7)

42 If they have them, they will use them.

Posted by: From the Cornfield at January 28, 2015 10:15 AM (4uxf8)

43 @40 Agreed 100%

Posted by: Yip at January 28, 2015 10:16 AM (84SRe)

44 Wow. After a coupla centuries I bet this "flask" item is kinda moldy"

It's called "flavor"

heh.

Posted by: anon a mouse at January 28, 2015 10:16 AM (/jpU8)

45 Has anyone asked Putin what he thinks about Iran building nukes? Or the Chinese?

Posted by: Ned Grunchlk at January 28, 2015 10:16 AM (TWr4e)

46 If Saddam had nukes he'd still be in charge of Iraq today, imo.

Posted by: votermom at January 28, 2015 10:16 AM (cbfNE)

47 29 -

Serious answer: there are lots of factions within the American governmental structure (Congress and executive) who really do fall into one or more of the following groupings, regarding their hopes for Iran:

1. Be that deterrent to Israel the left has always wanted.

2. Be the agent of Israel's destruction.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 28, 2015 10:16 AM (TOk1P)

48 Peace at any cost!

Posted by: LIV at January 28, 2015 10:16 AM (VAsIq)

49 Wow. After a coupla centuries I bet this "flask" item is kinda moldy
Posted by: Bigby's Shadow Puppets at January 28, 2015 10:14 AM

You'd be surprised how clean good, high-proof licker will keep it!

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at January 28, 2015 10:16 AM (knoK7)

50 With its terrorist history, do we really need THIS group to have nuclear arms?"

Why certainly, as that will balance our overwhelming power.

/stripedpantsbrigade

Posted by: anon a mouse at January 28, 2015 10:17 AM (/jpU8)

51 >>>>Peace at any cost!

And if that cost is Israel, meh.

Posted by: Pres'nt Obama at January 28, 2015 10:17 AM (VAsIq)

52 Dammit I always miss it when a new post comes up.

Posted by: Draki at January 28, 2015 10:18 AM (0eidE)

53 Dammit I always miss it when a new post comes up.

Posted by: Draki

I'm still waiting for the punchline.

Posted by: toby928(C) Pale Penis Person at January 28, 2015 10:18 AM (evdj2)

54 Meh
A glass parking lot Iran is a happy Iran

Yeah I went there

Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2015 10:18 AM (TDATv)

55 Has anyone asked Putin what he thinks about Iran building nukes"

Anyone wondering "how" Israel and "the west" know so much about what Iran is doing in this field?

Posted by: anon a mouse at January 28, 2015 10:18 AM (/jpU8)

56 Good write up.
And in brinksmanship, who would blink first in any future administration?

Posted by: Diogenes at January 28, 2015 10:18 AM (08Znv)

57 but do I post it here or there?!!!! I don't know~!!!

Posted by: Draki at January 28, 2015 10:19 AM (0eidE)

58 I think everyone here realizes this to be true. Nuclear Iran would be about the worst possible thing for the world right now.

Honestly, from our standpoint, "Nuclear anyone-who-isn't-us" is suboptimal, for all the reasons you state.

I suggest that the real problem is not that this is not understood, the problem is that those in power don't care, or are too afraid to do what needs to be done.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at January 28, 2015 10:19 AM (M1uf/)

59 >>>>Has anyone asked Putin what he thinks about Iran building nukes? Or the Chinese?

I tried, but I don't speak Rushinian or Chinesian.

Posted by: Pres'nt Obama at January 28, 2015 10:19 AM (VAsIq)

60 Those tiny little liquor flasks don't hold enough. Go for a stainless steel thermos. Everyone thinks you're drinking coffee.

Posted by: Ned Grunchlk at January 28, 2015 10:19 AM (TWr4e)

61 The Soviets came pretty close to launching a first strike against us.

Gromyko, the Soviet diplomat wanted to do it.

A full strategic barrage of thounsands of warheads all at once.

The line between the rational actor and the irrational one is very thin.

Letting Iran have one nuke is like letting the Soviets have one million of them.

Posted by: eman at January 28, 2015 10:20 AM (MQEz6)

62 If and when Iran goes nuclear they will use it.

Iran is not a rational actor. It matters not to its rulers that by nuking Israel that many Iranians will also die.........the goal is to bring about the end of the world. Once they can do so they will do it.

Heckofajob Barky.

Posted by: Boots at January 28, 2015 10:20 AM (l9mF2)

63 3. Gah. I really need to start daytime drinking.

O.o
What kind of lawyer are you?
***checks off of cool list***

Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2015 10:20 AM (TDATv)

64 I once had some binoculars where one side was actually a flask. Good for college football games. Lost somewhere now, alas.

Posted by: toby928(C) Pale Penis Person at January 28, 2015 10:20 AM (evdj2)

65 37
I still do not quite understand why the Israeli's have not taken action.
They have the most to lose, and once a mobile nuke is in Iranian
hands, there will be nothing that can be done.
===

There always is "something" that can be done.

In this case, Israel has been doing PLENTY. You will recall the Stuxnet virus that knocked a bunch of Iranian equipment offline. You'll recall some "mysterious explosions" at Iranian nuclear facilities. You may recall mysterious deaths of key Iranian nuclear scientists, etc.

The reason Israel hasn't taken direct military action, is just because its so risky. Iran has taken extensive precautions to try and prevent a repeat of the Osirak reactor destruction, including spreading out its targets, burying them under deep rock, etc. While Israel can probably pull off this type of attack, its technically difficult and success is most certainly not assured.

Further, by attacking Iran this way Israel would effectively be unilaterally starting a war, and one likely consequence is a retaliatory strike into Israel (eg Tel Aviv) by Iranian missles. Consequences there will be enormous, and even worse if the original attack doesn't succeed in severely disabling Iran's nuclear program. Risk/benefit here has simply never been all that attractive.

Posted by: looking closely at January 28, 2015 10:20 AM (6Q9g2)

66 Auschwitz, Schmausswitz, whatever, when there are just so many problems in South Central LA.

Posted by: Edmund Burke's Shade at January 28, 2015 10:21 AM (cmBvC)

67 We probably need to cut a deal with Putin to deal with the Iran problem.
Na.ga.happen with these clowns in charge.

Posted by: votermom at January 28, 2015 10:21 AM (cbfNE)

68 A glass parking lot Iran is a happy Iran

I don't know about "happy Iran" but it's *certainly* a happy Israel, and it *should* be a happy United States.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at January 28, 2015 10:21 AM (M1uf/)

69 #53 The lottery!

Posted by: Draki at January 28, 2015 10:21 AM (0eidE)

70 the goal is to bring about the end of the world"

Well, such absolutist language is most unhelpful.

/denizensoftheDCarea

Posted by: anon a mouse at January 28, 2015 10:21 AM (/jpU8)

71 60
Those tiny little liquor flasks don't hold enough. Go for a stainless steel thermos. Everyone thinks you're drinking coffee.

Fill it to the brim with peppermint schnaps. Everyone will think mouthwash.

Posted by: The Almighty at January 28, 2015 10:21 AM (XzRw1)

72 Shorter: Iran is already an existential threat both to the US and to our allies. If we are not willing to deal with them NOW, why on earth would anyone believe we'd be willing to deal with them once they attain The Bomb?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at January 28, 2015 10:22 AM (M1uf/)

73 I'm still waiting for the punchline."

The Aristocrats

Posted by: anon a mouse at January 28, 2015 10:22 AM (/jpU8)

74 Castro also wanted the Soviets to nuke Washington. (It has been said.)

I don't know about Gromyko give Khrushchev's opinion of the man.

"he would drop his trousers and sit on a block of ice if you told him to do it." (It has been said.)

Posted by: Ned Grunchlk at January 28, 2015 10:22 AM (TWr4e)

75 #53 The lottery!

Ha!

Posted by: toby928(C) Pale Penis Person at January 28, 2015 10:23 AM (evdj2)

76 They want to stir the poop-pot. It will hasten the arrival of the 12th imam.

"Shi'as believe that Imam al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason. At this time, it is believed, half of the true believers will ride from Yemen carrying white flags to Mecca, while the other half will ride from Karbalaa (Iraq) carrying black flags (hmmmm.) to Mecca. At this time, Imam al-Mahdi will come wielding Ali's Sword, Zulfiqar, the Double-Bladed Sword."

Upside is, they also think Jesus is coming with. My money's on the Jewish carpenter.

Posted by: Bob's House of Flannel Shirts and Wallet Chains at January 28, 2015 10:23 AM (vgIRn)

77 "he would drop his trousers and sit on a block of ice if you told him to do it."

NUTS!

Posted by: anon a mouse at January 28, 2015 10:23 AM (/jpU8)

78 #73 That only works if lance armstrong is involved.

Posted by: Draki at January 28, 2015 10:23 AM (0eidE)

79 76. Upside is, they also think Jesus is coming with. My money's on the Jewish carpenter.

My money is on the mexican gardener

Bet $10 I'm right

Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2015 10:25 AM (TDATv)

80 #76 are you saying Al-Mahdi is who they think Jesus is? I don't think that's right.

Posted by: Draki at January 28, 2015 10:25 AM (0eidE)

81 Upside is, they also think Jesus is coming with. My money's on the Jewish carpenter.

Posted by: Bob's House of Flannel Shirts and Wallet Chains at January 28, 2015 10:23 AM (vgIRn)

"Michael. Take your peeps and go sort that out for me, would ya?"
~the Jewish Carpenter

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at January 28, 2015 10:25 AM (M1uf/)

82 If Iran doesn't need to use nukes, then take it to the next step. They
don't need to have nukes, just make the claim they do. Who would want to
call that bluff? Especially if you share a border with Iran.
====

Ever seen the movie "Dr. Strangelove"?

Iran can "claim" all it lies, but even if it had a potentially workable bomb, nobody will believe it until/unless they actually tested one. They don't have to announce the test either. Plenty of sensors are around to detect nuclear explosions; if the pop one, the world will know.

But sure, you could make a pretty good argument, that they only thing they'd need to do is test one bomb. Since its widely known/believed that they have enough fissle material to make multiple bombs, they wouldn't actually have to build them. . .it would be assumed that these were already built (regardless of whether they were or weren't).

Posted by: looking closely at January 28, 2015 10:25 AM (PwGfd)

83 5 Iran repeatedly says it intends to destroy Israel and murder all of it's citizens. A nuclear weapon will be an excellent tool for the purpose, maybe the only possible tool.

Citizens can argue these points but the Obama foreign policy MUST be founded on the expectati Iran means to do what it so often says it will do, and the Obama administration MUST prevent the Iranians from getting the bomb. Any other approach indicates a deliberate willingness to see the second Holocaust happen.
///.//
Yesterday I was listening to Michael Savage and he said people should understand that we are living through a holicost now of Christians.

Posted by: Chilling the most at January 28, 2015 10:25 AM (zW5rQ)

84 >>>Go for a stainless steel thermos. Everyone thinks you're drinking coffee.

Van Gogh Double Espresso Vodka is the BOMB

Posted by: Bigby's Shadow Puppets at January 28, 2015 10:26 AM (3ZtZW)

85 @40
Imagine a nuclear Iran...adventurous...getting out and about in the world...feeling their oats as it were. And they meet up with one or more of the Mexican cartels.
Its just business.

Posted by: Diogenes at January 28, 2015 10:26 AM (08Znv)

86 OT: Sorry for going outside the box so early folks, but this must be shared.
I am reading through an old TIME magazine, dated Nov 1976. Obviously there is a lot of political shit here.
One of the letters to TIME: "If vicious, venomous, vituperative Carter is an example of one who has "taken Christ" as his Saviour, then I will take my chances with Hell. signed, PJ, Pennsville, New Jersey.

Posted by: madamemayhem at January 28, 2015 10:26 AM (WPm3x)

87 #76 are you saying Al-Mahdi is who they think Jesus is? I don't think that's right.

No. They think Jesus (who they claim was "just a prophet") will be with the mahdi.

Frankly, Mohammedan End Times mythology is even weirder than some of the more... flavorful Christian interpretations of Revelation.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at January 28, 2015 10:26 AM (M1uf/)

88 "he would drop his trousers and sit on a block of ice if you told him to do it." (It has been said.)

...and thus the modern Democrat Party was hatched.

Posted by: From the Cornfield at January 28, 2015 10:27 AM (4uxf8)

89 80 #76 are you saying Al-Mahdi is who they think Jesus is? I don't think that's right.
Posted by: Draki at January 28, 2015 10:25 AM (0eidE)

No. Al-Mahdi is their messiah, as it were, but I think they believe Jesus will be in his retinue when Al-Mahdi returns.

Posted by: Bob's House of Flannel Shirts and Wallet Chains at January 28, 2015 10:27 AM (vgIRn)

90 I hope that an idyllic painting is up next.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at January 28, 2015 10:27 AM (vPh3W)

91 Netanyahu is pursuing this strategy because da Zero is zero, and no ally of Israel. Also a lame duck with no majority in either house. You think it foolish ot alienate da Zero? Shit man, da Zero alienated Netanyahu a long time ago.

Posted by: maddogg at January 28, 2015 10:27 AM (xWW96)

92 Great post!

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at January 28, 2015 10:27 AM (g6GRm)

93 Those tiny little liquor flasks don't hold enough. Go for a stainless steel thermos. Everyone thinks you're drinking coffee.

Pfft. Get one of those big water bottles and fill it with vodka.

...you'd be standing on surprisingly sound linguistic grounds, anyway.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented at January 28, 2015 10:28 AM (DT3rQ)

94 Their opinions on Jesus are so odd. He wasn't crucified, he'll be hanging out with Mahdi, he was a virgin birth, he did miracles, he wasn't the son of god or said he was, he was "The Messiah," but he's not Mahdi... it's all so weird.

Posted by: Draki at January 28, 2015 10:28 AM (0eidE)

95
I hope that an idyllic painting is up next.

Idyllic means "featuring boobehs", right?

Posted by: Bandersnatch at January 28, 2015 10:29 AM (JtwS4)

96 Upside is, they also think Jesus is coming with. My money's on the Jewish carpenter.

Don't forget the weirdest feature of the Quranic Armageddon: trees and plants will begin speaking to tell Muslims where to find Jews to kill.

Posted by: Ian S. at January 28, 2015 10:29 AM (B/VB5)

97 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at January 28, 2015 10:26 AM (M1uf/)

IIRC, don't they have Jesus killing off the Jews as part of the grand finale?

Posted by: 1bulwetweft at January 28, 2015 10:29 AM (CzJOg)

98 The mullahs are building the bomb, and da Zero will don NOTHING to stop them. Its as simple as that.

Posted by: maddogg at January 28, 2015 10:29 AM (xWW96)

99 @64 I had those. Also, a fake portable radio. A holdover from Prohibition chic, I'm sure, but those things were all the rage in the 50's. I inherited mine from my snappy-dresser, pencil-mustached uncle, the hot rodder.

I style-booked AllenG the other day for changing his daily invective from "Mohammedism" to "Mohammedanism" because it is archaic, objectifying, and even more patently offensive. Well cursed, A.G.

Now I notice that Prof Reynolds is using "Muhammud" instead of, you know, what people say. Same technique, I'd say, and just what you get when your sacred language has no vowels. Lawrence to proofreader: "She was a magnificent beast."

"Mahmout" should be up next. And "Mussulman." To coin a phrase, heh.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at January 28, 2015 10:29 AM (xq1UY)

100 Can we hold up on the soon to be crusade till this afternoon?
I'm eying a new Sig 556 in 7.62
I'll be needing it for the end times

Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2015 10:30 AM (TDATv)

101
Shorter: Iran is already an existential threat both to the US and to our
allies. If we are not willing to deal with them NOW, why on earth
would anyone believe we'd be willing to deal with them once they attain
The Bomb?
===

On the second thing, exactly. We *ARE* going to be dealing with an Iranian bomb, period. Its just a question of WHEN. And as they say in the Middle East, the best time to kill a snake is when its small.

IE, it would be better for EVERYONE involved (including Iran) if we stopped them from ever getting a bomb.

As to the first thing. . .no, I don't believe that Iran poses an existential threat to the USA. To Israel. . .yes. To the USA, no. While obviously they could do tremendous damage, our country and population is just too large to be knocked out with a small number of nukes, and our ability to mount both conventional and nuclear reprisal too much for Iran to deal with.

Posted by: looking closely at January 28, 2015 10:30 AM (6Q9g2)

102 I hope the Art Post will be something sunny and warm.

Posted by: Citizen X at January 28, 2015 10:30 AM (7ObY1)

103 It takes a democrat:

to believe that Iran getting nukes is okay but the US *must* unilaterally disarm...

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at January 28, 2015 10:31 AM (/4AZU)

104 and Dave at Garfield Ridge, nice piece...

rather enjoyed the refreshing moral clarity and common sense.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at January 28, 2015 10:31 AM (/4AZU)

105 We need the art post like Hector needs a third asshole.

Posted by: maddogg at January 28, 2015 10:31 AM (xWW96)

106 Here's the way I see it:

The US and/or Israel need to, sooner probably sooner than later, need to adopt what I like to call-

"The Alinsky Method of Preventing Nuclear War"

That is

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and nuke the living daylights out of it.

Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Bomb the hell out of the people and institutions; people hurt faster than institutions, but killing off the government will allow something else to form. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized nuclear bombing and destruction works.)

Iran would be a good target for this demonstration of why you absolutely do. not. want. to. fuck. with. us.

or this thing happens to you.

Since the US and Israel are the current main targets of nuclear threats from islamic nutbars, this method would work.

Posted by: naturalfake at January 28, 2015 10:31 AM (0cMkb)

107 When Iran (not if, if Barky has anything to do about it) gets their bomb and delivery system perfected, the next President should transfer ownership of an Ohio class boomer to Israel. Let the mullahs know that they'll never fire the last shot. Perhaps that would sober them up a bit.

Posted by: fairweatherbill holding dominion over the nether regions at January 28, 2015 10:31 AM (OoHik)

108 Hmmmm, reminds me
There used to be a blog called ask Mo

The hate mail he got was awesome

Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2015 10:31 AM (TDATv)

109 105 Posted by: maddogg at January 28, 2015 10:31 AM (xWW96)

Hector in fact *needs* a third asshole...

//Dave the Trucker impatient in line

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at January 28, 2015 10:33 AM (/4AZU)

110 13 Progressives WANT a nuclear Iran ... as a deterrent to Israel and the USA.

I truly believe it's that simple.
Posted by: ScoggDog at January 28, 2015 10:04 AM (HpeUK)

I remember George Soros saying several years ago that the United States was the greatest threat to peace, and that he wanted to change our system of government.

Posted by: rickl at January 28, 2015 10:33 AM (zoehZ)

111 IIRC, don't they have Jesus killing off the Jews as part of the grand finale?

I think so.

I'm not a huge student of End Times myth-/theology. I think "today has troubles enough of its own," and worrying about the end times is fairly pointless.

For Christians, the important part is this: Christ is coming again. When he does, that's the end. So you'd better be right with God so that your name will be found written in the Book of Life.

Whether the specific physical events as described in Revelation occur (I doubt it), or if they're merely symbolic of some other events (more likely, IMO- though I do have more thoughts on this) doesn't really matter. My job is the same either way- heal the sick, comfort those in need of comfort, love my neighbor, love God, teach everyone I can.

If I'm doing those, the rest will take care of itself.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at January 28, 2015 10:34 AM (M1uf/)

112 Posted by: Stringer Davis at January 28, 2015 10:29 AM (xq1UY)

CS Lewis was the first person I know of to use "Mohammadan" as an invective, and he recognized (then) the threat we face now.

Posted by: 1bulwetweft at January 28, 2015 10:34 AM (CzJOg)

113 Dave spoke it as it is...except for the treason thingy.

Posted by: The roost aint what it used to be at January 28, 2015 10:35 AM (fC+Kl)

114 103
It takes a democrat:

to believe that Iran getting nukes is okay but the US *must* unilaterally disarm...
==

To believe that its OK for Khomeinist "Death to America" Hizb'Allah terrorism sponsoring Iran to have nuclear weapons, but its not OK for an adult American with a clean record to own a revolver.

I'd love to extend the same analogy used by gun-control advocates here to Iran. IE, why does Iran "need" nuclear weapons? Then I'd like to hear an answer that does not involve transparent Jew-hatred.

Posted by: looking closely at January 28, 2015 10:35 AM (PwGfd)

115 I remember George Soros saying several years ago that the United States was the greatest threat to peace, and that he wanted to change our system of government.
Posted by: rickl at January 28, 2015 10:33 AM (zoehZ)

As he sits his ass in a multi-million dollar condo in NYC. There's a person whose wealth should be seized.

Posted by: MikeH at January 28, 2015 10:35 AM (ZdA3v)

116 When is the last time a Korean or Russian supported group flew planes into one of our buildings or blew up a Marine barracks or rammed a speed boat into on of our Naval ships? That's because we are able to control them right ?

Posted by: Bob Belcher at January 28, 2015 10:36 AM (cNJvW)

117 >>> Then I'd like to hear an answer that does not involve transparent Jew-hatred.

---

Hey, I thought I hid it pretty well! I mean, a lot of them voted for me, right?

Posted by: Pres'nt Obama at January 28, 2015 10:36 AM (VAsIq)

118 Those tiny little liquor flasks don't hold enough. Go for a stainless steel thermos. Everyone thinks you're drinking coffee.

Strictly JV. REI sells a 100-oz Camelback.

Posted by: wisenheimer at January 28, 2015 10:37 AM (qnhj2)

119 As he sits his ass in a multi-million dollar condo in NYC. There's a person whose wealth should be seized.

Come the revolution, he'll be in Geneva with Barry.

Posted by: toby928(C) Pale Penis Person at January 28, 2015 10:37 AM (evdj2)

120 Iran itself said of Israel that is is a "one bomb country".

The United States as a country might possibly survive, in a state of dystopia, as a country. Not so for Israel.

Also, Israel now has the largest concentration of Jews anywhere in the world. A fact that Iran has also noted.

Anti-Semites, in whatever form they take - anti-Zionists, what have you, won't be content with just wiping Israel off the map, because Israel is not just a physical place. To destroy Israel, as Iran and many other anti-Semite regimes have noted, the Jews need to be exterminated.

Any bullshit minimizing of potential hoped for expectations that these regimes might act rationally in eventually deploying nuclear weapons against Israel... that's where the true irrationality resides.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 28, 2015 10:37 AM (BZAd3)

121 114. why does Iran "need" nuclear weapons?

Home defense?
To protect their dogs from MILITARIZED THUG COPS?

Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2015 10:37 AM (TDATv)

122 Gah. I really need to start daytime drinking.

Posted by: alexthechick - My preeecciiiooouuusss at January 28, 2015 09:55 AM (mf5HN)

I find your comments interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Posted by: physics geek at January 28, 2015 10:38 AM (MT22W)

123 Welcome to Iron Dome, bitchez!

Posted by: Bibi at January 28, 2015 10:38 AM (VAsIq)

124 115 Posted by: MikeH at January 28, 2015 10:35 AM (ZdA3v)

Soros has the pad in NYC but I heard he spends a lot of time in Beijing...

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at January 28, 2015 10:38 AM (/4AZU)

125 Obama is an enemy of Israel and all free people.

Bibi owes him nothing.

Posted by: Michael Douglas at January 28, 2015 10:39 AM (bsFjT)

126 Israel Returns Fire to Lebanon After 2 Soldiers Killed in Hezbollah Attack

http://tinyurl.com/lrrgtvf

Posted by: Meanwhile, in N. Israel at January 28, 2015 10:39 AM (bJCeW)

127 Direct, personalized nuclear bombing and destruction works.

How do you personalize nuclear bombing? Individual warheads with Hallmark cards? "Dear Achmed, Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, Chernobyl Glows, Now You Will Too"?

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented at January 28, 2015 10:39 AM (DT3rQ)

128 To protect their dogs from MILITARIZED THUG COPS?

Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2015 10:37 AM (TDATv)

Hmmm... you make a compelling argument.

So are the Cubs mathematically eliminated, yet?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at January 28, 2015 10:39 AM (M1uf/)

129 107
When Iran (not if, if Barky has anything to do about it) gets their bomb
and delivery system perfected, the next President should transfer
ownership of an Ohio class boomer to Israel. Let the mullahs know that
they'll never fire the last shot. Perhaps that would sober them up a
bit.
===
Nope. Wouldn't matter a lick.

Iran has described Israel as a 'one bomb' country, IE, they could effectively destroy it with one nuclear bomb. The Khomeinists have also said, in effect, that they don't care of a significant proportion of their population is killed in nuclear retaliation, because all those killed will be martyrs who go right to heaven.

More to the point, Israel right now is widely believed to maintain a last-ditch "second strike" nuclear capability with its own offshore submarines. Additional tech from the USA wouldn't hurt, but it probably isn't strictly necessary.

Posted by: looking closely at January 28, 2015 10:39 AM (6Q9g2)

130 124
115 Posted by: MikeH at January 28, 2015 10:35 AM (ZdA3v) Soros has the pad in NYC but I heard he spends a lot of time in Beijing...Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at January 28, 2015 10:38 AM (/4AZU)

He spends more time on Epstein's (not the SweatHog) Orgy Island.

Posted by: 1bulwetweft at January 28, 2015 10:40 AM (JkmfQ)

131 6 Our foreign policy is held hostage to Barry's hurt feelings. We're boned.

Posted by: toby928(C) Pale Penis Person at January 28, 2015 10:02 AM (evdj2)
======
for years it's been held hostage by so called FP experts that aren't. Great at going to parties but not much else.

Posted by: fastfreefall at January 28, 2015 10:40 AM (qyJ8a)

132
But the nuclear club isn't just the original five anymore. India and Pakistan have nukes and a history of border skirmishes.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at January 28, 2015 10:04 AM (JtwS4)

One correction. It's a history of one country continually attacking the other. EVERY one of their border conflicts (and something like 99% of the terrorism in India) is the fucking mohammedan Pakis crossing the border to kill Hindus and Sikhs.

In fact, this is the perfect illustration of Dave's point. If you look at all the conflicts in the world over the last 50-60 years, Pakistan has had their grubby little hands in most of them, to some degree. They can afford to get froggy because no one is willing to meaningfully lift a hand against a nuke-armed mohammedan country.

On a side note, I got a perverse amount of pleasure out of World War Z because in the book, Iran and Pakistan nuke each other into oblivion.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at January 28, 2015 10:41 AM (TIIx5)

133 Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 28, 2015 10:37 AM (BZAd3

At one time not so long ago weren't there more Jewish people in NYC than in Israel?

Posted by: Bob Belcher at January 28, 2015 10:41 AM (cNJvW)

134 of course Iran's own precepts to destroy Israel means nothing.

as Isis own words also mean nothing
and we Shouldn't base our Foreign policy on silly Words.

well silly words Others murderous regimes espouse..

Our words as peon citizens however are to Be restricted at All costs. Because painful and damaging .

Posted by: willow at January 28, 2015 10:41 AM (nqBYe)

135 CS Lewis was the first

He was almost certainly using "conscious archaism." I encountered it quite a lot in old translations of Crusader chronicles, which would have been composed in Old French, proto-German, and "new" Latin. Agreed, on how he used it, though.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at January 28, 2015 10:42 AM (xq1UY)

136 128. So are the Cubs mathematically eliminated, yet?

Speaking of sign of the end times....
Nope, as per the odds to win the Series the are at worst ranked #3 behind the Nationals and Dodgers
Scary isn't it?

Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2015 10:42 AM (TDATv)

137 Israelis live with the daily threat of annihilation hanging over their heads and understand the need for serious leadership.

The 52% live with the daily threat of losing their EBT cards. Hence, TFG.

Posted by: wisenheimer at January 28, 2015 10:42 AM (qnhj2)

138 "37
I still do not quite understand why the Israeli's have not taken action.
They have the most to lose, and once a mobile nuke is in Iranian
hands, there will be nothing that can be done.

Posted by: Edmund Burke's Shade at January 28, 2015 10:14 AM (cmBvC)"

Iron Dome is one of the things that Israel has done. This system has successfully shot down small rockets. The Patriot missiles and SM3 missiles can shoot down larger missiles farther off. Even if the Iranians use salvage fuzing to set off their nuclear device if their missiles are hit, that would merely guarantee that the nuclear explosions take place over Syria or Jordan. The Iranians might try to overwhelm an Israeli ABM system with a massive bombardment of missiles but that would be very expensive and I am not sure that the Iranians could afford it.

In any event, the Israeli response would put Iranians on the endangered species list.

When it comes to the United States, there is a different factor at work. Thanks to Barack Obama's campaign of divisiveness for political gain, I no longer have much concern for the cities where most of the support for Obama exists. I genuinely do not give a shit if Philadelphia, Boston or Chicago were to be nuked into radioactive glass. In fact, if Philadelphia were nuked, Pennsylvania would be a reliably red state in presidential elections. If Houston, Dallas and Austin were nuked, Texas would become even more Republican than it is now.

The US response, however, would also be that the Farsi language would be rarely spoken outside of Hell.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 28, 2015 10:43 AM (KDbAT)

139 At one time not so long ago weren't there more Jewish people in NYC than in Israel?
Posted by: Bob Belcher at January 28, 2015 10:41 AM (cNJvW)

European Anti-Semitism has fixed that.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 28, 2015 10:43 AM (BZAd3)

140 Iran is responsble for the bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires

tell me

what threat did the Jes of Buenos Aires pose to Iran

the answer is none. None at all

they are the biggest exporter of terrorism

more than Al Qaeda and ISIS could hope for

its not political with them, its bigotry'

it isnt about borders, its about submission to their ideology

its Islamic bigotry clothed in poltical dialectic

being a Jew has become a political act

Posted by: ThunderB, Shapeshifter at January 28, 2015 10:43 AM (zOTsN)

141 Scary isn't it?Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2015 10:42 AM (TDATv)

If they end up playing the Indians in the WS, I'm looking skyward then heading for the basement.

Posted by: 1bulwetweft at January 28, 2015 10:43 AM (JkmfQ)

142 In fact, this is the perfect illustration of Dave's point. If you look at all the conflicts in the world over the last 50-60 years, Pakistan has had their grubby little hands in most of them, to some degree. They can afford to get froggy because no one is willing to meaningfully lift a hand against a nuke-armed mohammedan country.

Correct.

I know he had his hands full with other matters, but I wonder what would have happened if Reagan had looked in the camera and said (in that solid, believable voice of his) "Mohammedanism is an evil death cult."

That said, the next DARPA project needs to be figuring out how to un-ring that particular bell. How do you neutralize the threat of a nuclear-armed opponent? Is missile defense the only option? Are there others? Sharks with lasers on their heads?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at January 28, 2015 10:44 AM (M1uf/)

143 Sockoff

Posted by: Garrett at January 28, 2015 10:44 AM (bsFjT)

144 American missiles should be flying fast and thick into the Middle East. For every "lone wolf" Jihadi we add a hundred martyrs. For every missile strike on an ally, we add a hundred martyrs. Heck, make it a thousand. Speed things up. Make it obvious their actions have lethal consequences for someone besides innocents in free societies.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson's nuclear deterrent at January 28, 2015 10:44 AM (VAsIq)

145 daring to not be Islamic has become a poltical act

its bigotry

Posted by: ThunderB, Shapeshifter at January 28, 2015 10:44 AM (zOTsN)

146 Direct, personalized nuclear bombing and destruction works.

How do you personalize nuclear bombing? Individual warheads with Hallmark cards? "Dear Achmed, Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, Chernobyl Glows, Now You Will Too"?

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented at January 28, 2015 10:39 AM (DT3rQ)

That is a nice touch.

But, yeah, you just make it clear that this happened because the gov't was a bunch of dickwads making a bunch of threats that we finally believed.

So...personal.

But the Card would be a great follow up.

Posted by: naturalfake at January 28, 2015 10:45 AM (0cMkb)

147 Fine. Art for Bandersnatch:

http://bit.ly/1yxomia

Posted by: alexthechick - My preeecciiiooouuusss at January 28, 2015 10:45 AM (mf5HN)

148 Bandersnatch:

That Pegida article I read was over at Breitbart :
http://tinyurl.com/nvud8n6

You might get an alternate take from this Leipzig newspaper: http://www.lvz-online.de/

There seems to be a Legida as well with different leaders which adds to the confusion.

Posted by: Hopped Up On Something at January 28, 2015 10:45 AM (NHtMs)

149 The Iranians might try to overwhelm an Israeli ABM system with a massive bombardment of missiles but that would be very expensive and I am not sure that the Iranians could afford it.

----

This is why I'm trying to ease the sanctions against them! Why won't you morons let me be clear!?

Posted by: Pres'nt Obama at January 28, 2015 10:46 AM (VAsIq)

150 Dear Achmed,

Nukes in the desert
Turn sand into glass
We found our own oil
We're nuking your ass.

Posted by: 1bulwetweft at January 28, 2015 10:47 AM (CzJOg)

151 also his premise that Bibi should not slight this administration has some truth to it. Because Bibi is not dealing with an administration that stands up to evil and even seemingly has a soft spot for murderous regimes that they Choose.

Yet, yet , It has seemed to be impossible to deal with this administration as honorable partners and this administration while decrying Bibi stepping on Obamas toes in defense of their country. Obama administration is Actively sending Helpers to assist in Israeli elections and ousting Bibi.

did Bibi cause this?
i would say No, The administration pretty actively insulted Israel and its leadership from the get go . while 'working with actively murderous Iran , MB etc..'

I think that implies Israel is fighting for its survival without an Allie.

this saddens me.

Posted by: willow at January 28, 2015 10:47 AM (nqBYe)

152 Art nood and I are firstest.

Posted by: fairweatherbill holding dominion over the nether regions at January 28, 2015 10:47 AM (OoHik)

153 Scary isn't it?Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2015 10:42 AM (TDATv)

If they end up playing the Indians in the WS, I'm looking skyward then heading for the basement.
Posted by: 1bulwetweft at January 28, 2015 10:43 AM (JkmfQ)

As someone who is a Cubs and an Indians fan, I agree with this whole heartedly.

Posted by: alexthechick - My preeecciiiooouuusss at January 28, 2015 10:48 AM (mf5HN)

154 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at January 28, 2015 10:44 AM (M1uf/)

I remember one DARPA plan for NK that was leaked. IIRC we would drop a large group of some type of metal poles onto their nuclear facilities that would skewer the plant whereas it would leave it inoperable. No explosions along with deniability.

Posted by: Bob Belcher at January 28, 2015 10:48 AM (cNJvW)

155 37
I still do not quite understand why the Israeli's have not taken action.
They have the most to lose, and once a mobile nuke is in Iranian
hands, there will be nothing that can be done.

Posted by: Edmund Burke's Shade at January 28, 2015 10:14 AM (cmBvC)"

There are, in my weak mind, many reasons. The main one is that Israel has the capability to carry out a conventional strike going in, but not returning to Israel alive - it would be a suicide mission.

Israel could probably take out Iranian nuclear capability using nukes as a first strike, but considering Israels short list of friends around the world, how would the world likely deal with Israel in the future?

The fact is, again in my opinion, there is no good outcome for Israel going it alone in taking out Iran's nuke capabilities.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at January 28, 2015 10:48 AM (BZAd3)

156 In baseball news...

I spoke to Braves skipper Fredi Gonzalez. Here's what he said: "We'll have lots of new players this year. Most of spring training will be spent teaching them to collapse in September, although it probably won't come to that."

Posted by: Sports Reporter in a Plaid Jacket at January 28, 2015 10:49 AM (Ks4nX)

157 a girl at my son'd university told him last night that she doesnt care how many Jews Iran and the terrorists kill

and as for the marines, she said the US military are no better than gang bangers and that in fact she preferred gang bangers

this is here now, in our universities. In the best universities

and thier speech is protected by the universities because it is political speech

they clothe thier bigotry in political speech

they are the new brownshirts

Posted by: ThunderB, Shapeshifter at January 28, 2015 10:49 AM (zOTsN)

158 Direct, personalized nuclear bombing and destruction works.

One of the Star Wars concepts that I really liked was to put giant lasers in space combined with powerful optical targeting. Vaporize the actually leaders of troublesome countries. I believe it was called 'Direct Accountability'. I called it The Goran Flame Death.

Sadly, it never got off the ground.

Posted by: toby928(C) Pale Penis Person at January 28, 2015 10:50 AM (evdj2)

159 >>>The 52% live with the daily threat of losing their EBT cards.

That's not a concern for them. If they were afraid of uncle sugar shutting off the tap, they would already be rioting.

Posted by: Garrett at January 28, 2015 10:50 AM (bsFjT)

160 157. Does he need help with bail for knocking her out?

Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2015 10:51 AM (TDATv)

161 That's not a concern for them. If they were afraid of uncle sugar shutting off the tap, they would already be rioting.
Posted by: Garrett at January 28, 2015 10:50 AM (bsFjT)

Bunch of 400lb people rioting? They'd run out of breath in 10 minutes

Posted by: MikeH at January 28, 2015 10:51 AM (ZdA3v)

162 typical ~~Sunday sermon [s/] Friday Rant being preached in mosques~~

~~Note: the vile actions only occur on days ending in Y~~

Posted by: DaveA at January 28, 2015 10:52 AM (DL2i+)

163 I think he was stunned. He wants to quit school, but tis everywhere

CAIR is the sponser of the Muslim Student Associations on American campuses, and they are the new brownshirts

Posted by: ThunderB, Shapeshifter at January 28, 2015 10:52 AM (zOTsN)

164 A nuclear Iran just nullifies Israel's ace in hole. Then you have a country of 60M versus one with 7M.

Posted by: Super Creepy Rob Lowe at January 28, 2015 10:54 AM (oDCMR)

165 164 A nuclear Iran just nullifies Israel's ace in hole. Then you have a country of 60M versus one with 7M.
Posted by: Super Creepy Rob Lowe at January 28, 2015 10:54 AM (oDCMR)

Iron Dome vs. no intercept capability

Posted by: MikeH at January 28, 2015 10:55 AM (ZdA3v)

166
Ace of Spades HQ continuing education series.
"conscious archaism"

http://www.bartleby.com/116/304.html

A bad writer, possibly psycho, who posts selfies, among other offenses and anyone who posts a comment including 'milch cows' should read this.

Dense, flaccid, stilted, and pretentious, trigger warnings.

Posted by: Ned Grunchlk at January 28, 2015 10:56 AM (TWr4e)

167 @147 Homina homina, not that's a Jewish Princess,
and here's Blanche Sweet in the role:
http://tinyurl.com/qdunohy

Griffith, 1914, the first multi-reel epic, and yep, Lil Gish was in it.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at January 28, 2015 10:56 AM (xq1UY)

168 May I recommend a quirky little movie.
"Deterrence" starring Kevin Pollack and Timothy Hutton. Substitute Iran for Iraq and away we go!

Posted by: madamemayhem at January 28, 2015 10:59 AM (WPm3x)

169 "he would drop his trousers and sit on a block of ice if you told him to do it."

Among the reasons that I was reinforced in my decision to enlist in the Army instead of the Marine Corps was their affection for ice sitting contests.

Also the Marine habit of sitting next to you at a bar, putting their forearm right next to yours and putting a lit cigarette in the space. When you jump up, you lose - according to their strange culture. Plenty of Marines had those worm like burn scars on their forearms.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 28, 2015 11:02 AM (KDbAT)

170
As he sits his ass in a multi-million dollar condo in NYC. There's a person whose wealth should be seized.

I'd help Malaysia rendition him.
Same thing for Holder and Mexico. (Really the embassy is right down the street).

Posted by: DaveA at January 28, 2015 11:09 AM (DL2i+)

171 To protect their dogs from MILITARIZED THUG COPS?
Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2015 10:37 AM (TDATv)

Dogs are Haram. Casual murder by the Basij, not so much.

Posted by: The Hobo Hooker Waitress Model Actress Who Is Nameless at January 28, 2015 11:16 AM (XeGAx)

172
A nuclear Iran may be reasonable today but there are no guarantees that a future ayatollah won't roll the dice on Armageddon.[\i]

If Iran were to nuke, say Tel Aviv, you're presuming that the US and the West will back Israel's retaliation. As of right now, that's a bad presumption. There's nothing in the West to indicate enough of a spine to back that, let along intestinal fortitude.

I'm not really seeing the downside, well except for living in Tehran.

Beside, Iran isn't likely to launch a nuke via missile. They're much more likely to try to smuggle it over the border, or perhaps on a cargo ship headed for Ashdod. Detonate it as you approach the city, or perhaps drop it over the side as you enter the harbor.

Underwater nuke detonations are very nasty pieces of work. Read up on Test Baker, part of Operation Crossroads (1946): http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ycx4p (wikipedia link)

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at January 28, 2015 11:22 AM (1hM1d)

173 well damn

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at January 28, 2015 11:23 AM (1hM1d)

174 Hey, every diplomatic problem has an easy solution if you hate America. And since the Democrats hate America just as much as the mullahs, problem solved.

Posted by: Null at January 28, 2015 11:34 AM (xjpRj)

175 Dave @ GnR.... there is a name from the past. How ya doing big guy?

Posted by: AndrewsDad at January 28, 2015 12:04 PM (C2//T)

176 Great post. - the Iranian bomb is a massive boost to Iran's status and
influence merely by existing (or being thought to exist, for that
matter).

It shows that Islam can achieve tech parity with the
West. Yes, they did it with stolen or sanction-evading tech from Europe
and elsewhere, but they're selling this idea to a population that
thinks the Mossad is responsible for 9/11 and erectile dysfunction.

It
counters Israel's nuclear deterrent, making easier for some wanna-be
Hidden Imams and Caliphs out there to think "we could win this thing
if..."

It puts all of Europe and Central Asia under a nuclear threat. Steyn touched on this in After America.

Lastly, it gives Iran a lifetime admission to all the proliferation talks where more of the sausage gets made.

If
only for that reason, no responsible American President, Democrat or
Republican or otherwise, should ever consider an Iranian nuke an
acceptable outcome unless we're several decades past a successful Green
Revolution - supporting which in 2009 would have been the one move that
could have resolved this situation for the better.

Of course,
Barky doesn't wan't a better more stable and Israel/America-friendly
Middle-East. He and his cabal of intifadistas like Rice, Powers,
Hillary/Huma and Kerry want Israel and the U.S. humbled and hobbled and
the Muslim nations to have "parity" equal to their numbers and alleged
"international standing." I heard this anti-colonialist, blame the West
first claptrap all through PoliSci and they are walking talking
embodiments of my textbooks from the 1980's. And the campus has gotten
much worse since.

We used to be smart enough not to elect the
whole PoliSci department to office, in that they were the only committed
Marxists on earth, but now they're in every department but some STEM
fields, and we appoint them as NSA advisors rather than consultants
behind the scenes. So you get the clown car of shame that is American
foreign policy since January 2009.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at January 28, 2015 12:12 PM (QKIQb)

177 WTF on the formatting?

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at January 28, 2015 12:13 PM (QKIQb)

178 Imagine a world where the USA doesn't think it has the right to go around the planet knocking over governments it doesn't like.

Posted by: Rollory at January 29, 2015 06:39 AM (z2L/U)

179 Escort girls http://REGMODELS.RU

Posted by: Tina at January 30, 2015 04:47 PM (uV0j1)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0306 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.011 seconds, 188 records returned.
Page size 109 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.