Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Uh... I'm not entirely clear on how Extreme Pumpkins have anything to do with Iranian Presidential decrees, but that's just me...

Posted by John Breen III at October 31, 2005 01:02 PM

Heh!

Iran fears the Extreme Pumpkin?

Posted by Bill White at October 31, 2005 01:02 PM

John wins the race!

Many evangelical Christians disapprove of Halloween, so who knows. Maybe pumpkins undermine Islamic values.

Posted by Bill White at October 31, 2005 01:04 PM

Must have something to do with the clock on the site being off by, oh, 40 minutes or so... and still on Pacific Time, since Rand lives in Florida...

Posted by John Breen III at October 31, 2005 01:09 PM

I'm not entirely clear on how Extreme Pumpkins have anything to do with Iranian Presidential decrees, but that's just me...

C'mon, John, think man! Connect the dots!

Seriously, sorry 'bout that. The link is fixed now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 31, 2005 01:16 PM

The link is fixed. Okay, that article. I saw that report weeks ago.

Public bluster ("playing chicken") to shore up support among the rabid Islamo-nut-case political base. If Iran actually did mount a serious attack on Israel, Iran would suffer severe consequences.

Of course, if the West ignores the bluster, it works and moderate Iranians are further marginalized.

Note that our dependence on Persian Gulf oil is one reason given for the West's inability to act decisively. Montana coal gasification and nuclear powered hydrogen production.

Then, they mess we us and we level 'em.

Posted by Bill White at October 31, 2005 01:25 PM

Interesting thing: they apparently only see the international portrayal of the US by the liberal media. That leads foriegnors to wonder why Bush won, because he was the opposite of what was being portrayed as US thinking. I think that relying on our overseas press to get an image of what the US will and won't do will end up with them on the surprised end of a spear.

There are alternatives to all out war - for example, if they really pulled a 9/11 we could easily go in and destroy government/infrastructure and leave them to slowly die while we take over the oil fields. What is hard is being nice, avoiding casualties, etc. If we ever get beyond that (say a nuke in New York), I think Iran wouldn't last very long...

Posted by David Summers at October 31, 2005 01:31 PM

Bring it on.

Look at the last time that happened.

Posted by M. Thompson at October 31, 2005 01:34 PM

You've got to have some sympathy for the guys leading Iraq. They must know objectivly that their armed forces can't stop the West, that a war would be a disaster for them.

They fought the Iraq army to a standstill and then spent years slugging it out - they knew the measure of those guys and knew Iraq has an army to be reckoned with.

Then the Americans - twice in a generation - took that army apart in detail. In four days of ground war to contest a small bit of land the first time and a few weeks for an entire country the next.

But they can't say that in their system and survive. And their faith seems (to this outsider) to demand that you refuse to acknowledge the truth. God is great, he's on your side and everything since, oh, 1600 or so has been just a temporary setback.

Posted by Brian at October 31, 2005 02:19 PM

I used to have some of those human sized targets that look like Soddamn Insane, wonder where I can get some that look like this peice of Persian Nutburger?

Posted by Steve at October 31, 2005 02:44 PM

Being British and the apparent target of this particular piece of bile i personnally think this is their "Galtieri" moment (the one time leader of the Junta that ran Argentina, problems at home regime failing, look outside for an enemy). Forget overt military action, there are a hell of a lot of their own people who hate the mad mullahs. Be subtle (ish) help them, after all the Iranians are helping fund the terrorists killing our boys in Iraq. Do unto others springs to mind, as does eye for an eye! If that doesnt,t work, well we tried, bring it on. You will lose.

Posted by at October 31, 2005 04:25 PM

Makes you wonder what they think we'd do to them if they actually did pop a nuke here or over in the UK. Somehow I don't think they would like the answer to that question. If any of them are left alive. (The Iranian Leadership, that is.)

Posted by Greg at October 31, 2005 07:57 PM

If only we had a president with the guts to send missiles instead of troops- these clowns would shut up in a hurry.

Posted by at October 31, 2005 08:48 PM

Blank,

You are entirely too pollyannaish. Technological solutions to political problems don't work and can't work. Nobody is ever really impressed by being bombed. Put it this way: would you cave to unreasonable demands because the demanders were blowing up your neighbors? Why do you doubt that anyone else could be so resolute?

Bombing campaigns are extremely useful; they distract people from the approach of the troops. Nothing is resolved until a 19-year-old is standing on the disputed ground, probably soliciting a prostitute.

Regards,
ric

Posted by Ric Locke at October 31, 2005 08:58 PM

I wish that our Media would play this quote up. The public needs to hear that the Anglosphere and our other allies are standing up to these 9th century throw backs.

It was impressive when we dismantled Saddam's Iraq, but it was really, really sweet when a couple hundred spec ops guys and bombers from the Air force and the Navy allowed the muslim northern alliance natives to smash the Taliban in a matter of weeks.

It may be possible to turn Iran from within.... And if revolution isn't in the cards this year, then I hope the spec ops guys are causing accidents to the nuclear production facilities.

Fight on.

Posted by Fred Kleindenst at October 31, 2005 09:08 PM

The importance of oil dependency for the fight on terror.

This report was hardly written by a bunch of lefties.

Posted by Bill White at November 1, 2005 07:28 AM

It is not about oil, stupid.

Posted by Leland at November 1, 2005 07:47 AM

Ric,
There are missiles and then there are ICBMs. If you're simply talking about what Clinton did in Afghanistan then yea, nothing but a distraction. And a mild one at that. But once you started instantaneously melting cities the 'war' would last only hours and you'd have a population that was the equivalent of what Germany and Japan were after WWII.

Posted by Michael Mealling at November 1, 2005 08:03 AM

Tell that to Senator Kyl & Senator Lieberman. Or are they stupid also?

Posted by Bill White at November 1, 2005 08:03 AM

“We must show that we are eagles.”

Thats okay we can be Eagles also. Or, maybe even as a Falcon hell I bet we could take them even as a Osprey

Posted by Josh Reiter at November 1, 2005 09:03 AM

It is not about oil, stupid.

My take is that one would also need to undermine the profitability of the heroin trade. That is another funding source.

While eliminating oil dependency would ultimately be more effective (and have environmental benefits), if control of oil were shifted from authortarian governments to democratic governments (and then preferably to a competitive private market), that would probably suffice as well.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 1, 2005 09:04 AM

One thing about this supposed "oil dependance" - if we were cut off from middle eastern oil, we would pay a slight premium for Canadian/US/Anywhere but Middle East oil and the rest of the world (say, France) would happily keep buying middle east oil. On the flip side, if they cut off enough production that the US was starved for oil, I think pretty much everyone would invade - not just the US!

In reality, our economy is less dependant on oil than most. Look at the effect of the oil price increase on CPI and GDP - it is far less than 1 to 1. Developing countries are the hardest hit, sadly.

Posted by David Summers at November 1, 2005 09:08 AM

Yes, everything will be different the day someone figures out large scale cold fusion. But until then Middle Eastern oil is going to continue to be critical to the world economy, whether we manage to conserve and exploit more domestic oil sources or not.

Posted by KeithK at November 1, 2005 09:46 AM

I agree with Karl Hallowell about supressing the heroin trade.

I also agree that a preferable "Plan A" would be to have Persian Gulf oil controlled by reasonably democratic non-fundie governments however that cannot be our only plan.

A "Plan B" (US oil independence) is necessary because the military overthrow of the Iranian government (which is the original subject of Rand's post) could very easily result Iraqi, Iranian and large amounts of Saudi oil being off-line for up to a year. Iranian conventional missiles can reach critical Saudi oil terminals and sulfur cleaning equipment and Hezbollah terrorists can easily reach Iraqi oil pipelines and the oil facilities around Basra.

Take Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia off-line (for everyone) for several months or a year and we have a problem, a big problem. The 3rd World will suffer most but everyone would suffer.

This is why the Iranians believe they can "play chicken" with us. Montana coal gasification and nuclear power would allow us to smash the Iranian chicken with relative impunity.

Posted by Bill White at November 1, 2005 09:55 AM

would you cave to unreasonable demands because the demanders were blowing up your neighbors? Why do you doubt that anyone else could be so resolute?

I dunno. Does "I saw what the Americans did in Iraq and I was a-fraid" ring a bell? Anyone? Bueller?

Uh, Rand, why is the word afr*id blocked?

Posted by Rick C at November 1, 2005 02:30 PM

I don't think they are going to follow through on their threat to destroy Israel.

Why? Because if the Israelis are anything like what I think they are, then the first bomb on Tel Aviv would be answered by three; first Tehran, followed by Mecca and Medina. What would they have to lose?

It would seem rather odd, I think, even to the most rabid of fundamentalists, to pray to a sheet of green glass that glows in the dark.

Posted by Ian Campbell at November 2, 2005 03:03 AM

It would seem rather odd, I think, even to the most rabid of fundamentalists, to pray to a sheet of green glass that glows in the dark.

Why not? Given that sheet of glass would represent the martyrdom of several hundred thousand innocents from all parts of the globe, it's a more powerful religious symbol than a hunk of black rock. I suppose it might be an indication to Islamic fanatics that Allah isn't on your side, but I think religious fanatics in general are flexible enough to ignore signs like that. Besides such an epically misdirected response from Israel probably will help their cause in the long run.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 2, 2005 09:47 AM

The Iranians have been saying death to America and Israel since the Carter administration. Why is everyone taking it personally all of a sudden?
Time to bring back the hit song sung to the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann", "Bomb Iran!".

Posted by Sam Dinkin at November 2, 2005 11:57 AM

Agree with Sam on this. The President of Iran is just playing to his base for what appears to be internal political issues. Sure, we, the US, might be interested in those political issues, but I doubt that Iran will begin an overt attack on Israel anytime soon.

Posted by Leland at November 2, 2005 01:20 PM

Overt is a poor choice of words... rather "large scale military attack".

Posted by Leland at November 2, 2005 01:22 PM

Stop thinking of this Iranian President as a rational actor. You can't put yourself inside his head. You'd be a fool to even try. If he says he's going to destroy America he actually thinks he's going to destroy America. Believe it, or start putting your affairs in order.

Posted by Randy Perkins at November 2, 2005 05:36 PM

Karl Hallowell:

First point; in the scenario I envisage, Israel would have nothing left to protect. Four or five weapons would kill a large percentage of Israel's population - it's a very small country. So no cause to harm, because the cause wouldn't exist and neither would its proponents.

Second point. Innocents? Where? The Islamic religion is extreme by any standards. The point of view of the fundamentalists can be supported by study of the Koran, that point being that everyone on Earth should be either Moslem or dead. Going on hajji is tacit approval of this stance.

Islam last had anything to contribute to civilisation eight hundred years ago. It is the enemy of everything good and civilised in the world, and it's about time those of us who aren't one to recognise and admit the fact.

Jihad is already here, and only one side knows it.

Posted by Ian Campbell at November 3, 2005 04:48 PM

Randy,
Others made the same comment about Nikita Khrushchev when he declared "we will crush you". He was certainly a dangerous adversary, but if he was irrational, then I suspect the Cuban missile crisis would have ended far differently.

I do believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is rational as well as very dangerous. However, I do hope that the US remains vigilent and wary in trusting him. Not because he is irrational, but just because he is dangerous.

Posted by Leland at November 4, 2005 08:54 AM

Post a comment