April 24, 2006
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, The Sex Scene Finale
Post-coital update.
Posted by: annika at
06:03 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You know that this stuff is at the level of fart jokes?
Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2006 04:15 PM (2gORp)
2
Pornography with pumpkins. My life is complete.
Posted by: Mark at April 26, 2006 02:45 PM (A4zYZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 23, 2006
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, The Sex Scene Part 2
Posted by: annika at
06:00 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
1
LOL! Where there's a will...
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 23, 2006 11:42 PM (AGFpb)
2
HAHAHAHAHA. He's got a candle inside of him. Holy shit. This is like watching Napoleon Dynamite.
Posted by: JD at April 25, 2006 10:50 AM (xD5ND)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 22, 2006
Prayer Request
Please remember
Gcotharn's mom in your prayers. Though I've never met Greg, he's been a great friend and supporter of this blog, and it's a sad thing that has happened in his family. I hope his mom will have a full recovery.
Posted by: annika at
07:54 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.
Happy Earth Day
Oh hey, today is Earth Day! I forgot all about it. Damn.
And I took an extra long, hot shower too. While running the dishwasher. With the heat-dry selected.
I'm going to go turn off some lights now. I wouldn't want to kill the Earth on Earth Day.
Update: I just found out about a thing us chicks can do to save the Earth that I will most definitely not be doing. No thank you. Sorry.
Hat tip to Feisty Republican Whore.
Posted by: annika at
03:34 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What do you have against Toxic Shock Syndrome, sister?
Posted by: Steph at April 22, 2006 08:12 PM (iB8Gs)
2
Um... yeah... if it ever gets to the point that I'm *that worried* about my gynecological health, I'll get The Shot and forget tampons altogether.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at April 22, 2006 11:47 PM (954g7)
3
*insert clever comment about Cherokee hair tampons here*
Posted by: TBinSTL at April 23, 2006 01:04 AM (bYmT0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, The Sex Scene
Posted by: annika at
06:56 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.
1
A,
From one sci-fi geek to another, I have to ask:
Is this "unnumbered" episode to be considered "canonical" or "apocryphal"?
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at April 22, 2006 04:17 AM (1PcL3)
2
Well this is a disappointment. To be honest, I think this Peter guy is all talk. Turn the lights off?! What kind of wussy is he?
Posted by: Pursuit at April 22, 2006 06:12 AM (n/TNS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 21, 2006
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, Episode 14
Posted by: annika at
08:39 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Heh. I'm liking these more and more.
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 11:13 AM (xD5ND)
2
where is it going? I NEED DIRECTION! :p
Posted by: Scof at April 21, 2006 01:46 PM (a3fqn)
3
The woman in the last frame looks like one of those European cartoon characters - Lulu or whatever.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 21, 2006 11:17 PM (Vd9eZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 20, 2006
In Memoriam: Scott Crossfield
Yesterday we lost one of the great legends of aviation, and an American hero. Scott Crossfield was the first man to travel twice the speed of sound. He died when his single engine Cesna 210A crashed in Gordon County, Georgia.
On November 20, 1953, Scott Crossfield's Douglas D-558-II Skyrocket dropped from the belly of a B-29 and accelerated to 1,291 miles per hour at about 72,000 feet over California's Mojave desert. He had just lapped the sound barrier, twice.
If you would like to see actual footage of the Skyrocket launching from a B-29, go here.*
If aviation fanatacism were a religion, the entrance gallery of the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum would be its Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Mecca all rolled into one. As any visitor to this temple knows, all you have to do is look up and you will see alongside the Wright Flyer** a constellation of the greatest planes in the history of the world. One of these planes is the North American X-15.
Scott Crossfield was the first man to pilot the X-15, in its dual rocket configuration, on June 8, 1959. He was one of 12 test pilots, a group which also included Neil Armstrong. The plane flew 199 times, launching from under the wing of a B-52. Thirteen of those flights exceeded 50 miles in altitude, bestowing the title of "astronaut" on the pilots. Two flights exceeded 65 miles.
One X-15 pilot, Michael Adams, was killed when the plane began to spin and hit 15 g's before it broke up over the desert.
Here's a picture after a hard landing with Scott Crossfield at the controls. This was the X-15's third flight, and one of the rocket engines had exploded after launch. Amazingly, Crossfield walked away from this landing unhurt. Stud.
Scott Crossfield survived 30 flights in the X-15, including another mid-flight engine explosion. His last flight was in 1960, and all of the speed and altitude records were set later, by other men. But it was Scott Crossfield who made the courageous first test flights of this amazing and historic aircraft.
The X-15 could go 4,520 mph, almost seven times the speed of sound. It set altitude records that were not broken by any plane except the Space Shuttle until the recent flight of SpaceShipOne. The fifth American to enter space did so in an X-15!
Its highest flight made it to over 67 miles (354,199 feet). The X-15's rate of climb was 60,000 feet per minute. Contrast that with the 767 I flew in recently, which gets to its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet at about 2,400 feet per minute.
But those are just numbers. Wanna see how bad-ass this thing was? And how insane pilots like Scott Crossfield were to fly them? Check out this unbelievable video from inside the X-15, looking backwards as it launches. I had to run it a few times, and each time I was moved to shout something like "holy shit..." in disbelief. Keep an eye on the upper left, and you can see the contrails of the B-52 launch plane disappear in about five seconds as the X-15 rockets into space.
Just amazing.
Albert Scott Crossfield: pilot, American hero; born October 2, 1921 in Berkeley California; slipped the surly bonds of earth April 19, 2006.
_______________
* By the way, the Dryden Test Center site is amazing. There's so much good stuff here. Check out this fly-over shot of my alltime favorite jet. It's absolutely awe-inspiring!
** Not a reproduction, mind you. I'm talking about the real actual very first airplane ever.
Posted by: annika at
06:33 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 605 words, total size 4 kb.
1
If a pilot has to die, this is the way to do it.
You can still fly your own plane at 85 and then you get instant death when it crashes.
Posted by: Jake at April 20, 2006 08:40 PM (XOf7A)
2
Something like half of all auto fatalities are surmised to be suicides. Plausible deniability adds verisimilitude, plus one gets to drop in the harness, or as The Great Santini would say, "It beats dying of the piles!"
Posted by: Casca at April 20, 2006 09:12 PM (2gORp)
3
My exposure to this world is via Chuck Yeager's autobiography, which I haven't cracked open in a few years but which is an entertaining read. I've forgotten his opinion of Crossfield.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 20, 2006 10:13 PM (eY1H8)
4
I surmise Casca is full of verisimilitude...
...sad to hear; I lost a high school friend who had been at the Air Force Academy. Matt and a friend decided to buy motorcycles and the 1st day they took them out a truck ran a red light; RIP x2
Posted by: Scof at April 21, 2006 12:03 AM (S5uvk)
5
*that story is relevant cuz Matt was an accomplished pilot; it takes bravery to fly those machines and these guys get joy out of it.
Posted by: Scof at April 21, 2006 12:06 AM (S5uvk)
6
These guys were truly remarkable, but I don't think Yeager was too keen on Crossfield, who he described as taking far too many risks.
Funny that only a few years ago Yeager was landing a small plane in north Georgia and got pushed off the runway in a crosswind gust. (no injuries)
All these guys are heroes in my eyes, hell the Cessna I fly won't descend half as fast as these guys climbed.
Posted by: Mike C. at April 21, 2006 03:41 AM (y6n8O)
7
Annika, you did sort of strike me as a Blackbird kind of gal. Really cool shot. Thanks for the post and the link to the flyover.
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 07:38 AM (xD5ND)
8
My Grandma helped assemble the cockpit of that thing, when she worked at the Skunkworks.
Posted by: annika at April 21, 2006 08:22 AM (fxTDF)
9
Annika,
Thanks for reviving my memories of the X-15 and all the brave and fearless guys who flew them. As a kid I was a big X-15 fan, read the books about the pilots and their flights and rue the day the Kennedy administration took the space program from these guys to go with the "spam in the can" approach. This was and should have continued to be the thrust into space not just touching it's hem.
Skunkworks eh? I loved that book and love driving up the West Side Hyw. in Manhattan because, as you probably know, a SR-71 sits on the foward deck of the Intrepid. What a sight! We have a friend who was a buddy of Ben Rich's and was a very senior engineer on the B-2.
Posted by: Strawman at April 21, 2006 11:04 AM (o/gnC)
10
Mike C, thanks.
Strawman, didn't the X-15 crowd sort of win when we adopted the shuttle approach?
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 21, 2006 11:18 PM (Vd9eZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Coolest Thing On The Internets Of The Day
For F-16 fans,
a cool video of low level flying through the fjords of Norway. Takes a while to load.
Hat tip to Shelly.
Posted by: annika at
07:40 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
1
my brother says "f'ng cool!"
i liked it too
Posted by: Scof at April 20, 2006 08:38 AM (a3fqn)
2
That was cool. WTG, Shelly!
Posted by: Victor at April 20, 2006 09:32 AM (L3qPK)
3
Annika,
This is one of the best. That kind of action set to music is awesome. For an aerspace guy like me it makes my day to see these machines in action.
Posted by: Patrick at April 21, 2006 10:19 AM (HrM5x)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 19, 2006
Sci-Fi Fiction News.
May 16th is the release date for
Elemental: The Tsunami Relief Anthology: Stories of Science Fiction and Fantasy.
Elemental has an introduction by Arthur C.Clarke and more than twenty stories by Brian Aldiss, David Drake, Jacqueline Carey, Martha Wells, Larry Niven, Joe Haldeman, Eric Nylund, Sherrilyn Kenyon writing as Kinley MacGregor, and a Dune story by Brian Herbert & Kevin J. Anderson, and many others.
Arthur C. Clarke lives in Sri Lanka. According to Amazon, all publisher and author profits will go to the Save the Children Tsunami Relief Fund.
I love Sci-Fi anthologies. My favorite one so far has been Redshift. They're a great way to find out about new authors, and it seems that some writers are more willing to take risks in the short story format than in a novel.
Posted by: annika at
07:43 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I used to be a huge scifi reader, then for some reason I just could not read it anymore, Simple as that. The only Scifi writer whom I read back in the 1970's who really seemed to get the near future right was the scifi comedy writer Ron Goulart.
In his world, there were lots of the modern gadgets we have now like PC's and cell phones, but they never worked right, all politicians were liying bastards, and every other person you met was some sort of predator or pervert, Yea, he pretty much nailed it.
Posted by: kyle8 at April 20, 2006 03:53 AM (dKUT7)
2
sounds like he was a time traveler from the future
Posted by: annika at April 20, 2006 07:07 AM (fxTDF)
3
Heya Annika -
Thanks for the post - we all really appreciate it. Indeed, every single cent from the book earned by authors, artists and even the 'profit pool' is being donated to Save the Children's relief effort to help rebuild SE Asia, providing essential services and support for the children out there.
Kyle - we've attempted to get every kind of sf and f together, so there is something for everyone in the book. Hope you'll give it a shot. Who knows, you might rediscover your love of SF.
Cheers
Steve
Posted by: Steven Savile at May 17, 2006 03:09 PM (8L2QQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wednesday Is Poetry Day
Is there any subject that can't be examined by a poet? Here we have biology, in a Shakespearian sonnet by English poet John Masefield (1878–1967):
What am I, Life?
What am I, Life? A thing of watery halt
Held in cohesion by unresting cells,
Which work they know not why, which never halt,
Myself unwitting where their Master dwells
I do not bid them, yet they toil, they spin
A world which uses me as I use them;
Nor do I know which end or which begin
Nor which to praise, which pamper, which condemn.
So, like a marvel in a marvel set,
I answer to the vast, as wave by wave
The sea of air goes over, dry or wet,
Or the full moon comes swimming from her cave,
Or the great sun comes forth: this myriad I
Tingles, not knowing how, yet wondering why.
Poet suggested by Casca.
Posted by: annika at
11:16 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.
1
so how does a marine know about masefield? nice poem.
Posted by: Scof at April 19, 2006 11:33 AM (S5uvk)
2
Trained killers have souls, also.
Posted by: shelly at April 19, 2006 04:43 PM (BJYNn)
3
What kind of fool has never heard of the warrior/poet?
I can't let this occasion pass without giving Masefield his due. He went to sea in the age of sail; was an accomplished poet & scholar when he went to the trenches in 1915 at forty; in 1930 became the Poet Laureat a post he held for the next 37 years until his death.
Leave it to Annika to find some Masefield that I've never seen. My favorite Masefield could be
Sea Fever, but it isn't, it's
The Passing Strange.
Only a beauty, only a power,
Sad in the fruit, but bright in the flower,
Endlessly erring for it's hour.
Posted by: Casca at April 19, 2006 07:28 PM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 18, 2006
New Slogans For The Democratic Party
I just got a spam e-mail from Tom Vilsack, Democratic governor of Iowa, and I presume a future presidential candidate. Don't ask me how I got on his mailing list, I have no earthly idea.
But apparently his PAC has been running a contest for the best ten word slogan to represent the Democratic Party. The contest is now down to the final ten slogans submitted by ten "activists."*
Funny thing about the finalists. Four of them aren't even ten words long. Typical Democrats. Always thinking the rules don't apply to them.
Anyways, I think it's unfair that we conservatives weren't allowed to get in on this contest. Do you all have any ideas for ten word slogans that encapsulize the Democratic Party?
I'll start it off:
"Democrats - because national security makes my head hurt too much."
_______________
* I love that word. To me it's a euphemism for jobless looney.
[cross-posted at The Cotillion]
Posted by: annika at
07:38 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.
1
How about:
The Democratic Party: Out of touch with reality since 1932.
Posted by: Go 4 TLI at April 18, 2006 08:48 PM (TmKwU)
2
How about a bastardization of a great Monty Python (aka Cleverness Incarnate) quote:
We will cut down the mightiest Shrub WIIIIITH.... red herrings!
Posted by: The Law Fairy at April 18, 2006 09:22 PM (954g7)
3
Actually, Vilsack is the governor of Iowa. The governor of Ohio is a Republican, Robert Taft XXII, although most Ohio Republicans are trying to forget that right now. Amazing how Canadians know that kinda stuff, huh?
And as far as your slogan goes, I wouldn't exactly be running on the president's national security priorities right now. Unless of course that slogan is, "The GOP, so sure that we'll win the War on Terror that we'll give the enemy seven of our ports as a handicap."
The Dubai ports deal really hurt message delivery on national security. Yes, the Democrats are fucking pathetic, but do you really want to give them that kind of a mulligan?
Posted by: skippystalin at April 18, 2006 09:22 PM (ohSFF)
4
Iowa, Ohio, what's the diff?
Posted by: annika at April 18, 2006 09:25 PM (fxTDF)
5
"Up With Democrats! Other Six Words Were Taxed Off Slogan"
Posted by: Thomas Galvin at April 18, 2006 10:32 PM (KjUHH)
6
"Vote Democrat, because nothing but special interest groups matter anymore!"
Posted by: Mike C. at April 19, 2006 03:32 AM (wZLWV)
7
I just read their list. I see that nothing has changed. They are the perfect enemy. They have no bench, and politics is about personality, no message so nothing to stir the American heartland, and no hope of winning, which will bring me peace in my dottage.
The diff between Iowa and Ohio? 13 Electoral votes my dear.
Posted by: Casca at April 19, 2006 06:11 AM (y9m6I)
8
Democrats: Let's lose the war and get the majority back.
Posted by: shelly at April 19, 2006 08:18 AM (BJYNn)
9
Democrats: Let's lose the war and get the majority back.
Posted by: shelly at April 19, 2006 08:21 AM (BJYNn)
10
Democrats: Lying commie bastards and proud of it.
Posted by: Blu at April 19, 2006 08:56 AM (AgDbn)
Posted by: BobG at April 19, 2006 09:11 AM (Tqd7E)
12
Democrats: Proudly serving trial lawyers, union thugs, unqualified minorities, & sexual perverts!
Posted by: Blu at April 19, 2006 09:19 AM (AgDbn)
13
"Iowa, Ohio, what's the diff?"
Heeeey! There's plenty of diff! One farms corn, the other farms co....
... wait a minute...
Okay! One's in the midwest, the other's...
Crap...
IGotIt! Pick something so totally arbitrary and so incredibly random that there no way in
hell it can match! I pick: The last syllable of their state university's mascots! GOTIT! One's a Buckeye, the other's a Hawk...
Goddammit....
I give up. What the hell
is the diff?
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 19, 2006 09:39 AM (xHyDY)
14
Oh, wait, yeah. Slogan, 10 words or less:
"Anyone but Bush. Because we'd rather hate than make sense."
It may not be fair to a bunch of moderate, sane Democrats, but it sure as hell sums up the Kos wing of the party.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 19, 2006 09:44 AM (xHyDY)
15
Annie's post says Iowa. Where's the talk of Ohio coming from?
Posted by: Blu at April 19, 2006 10:59 AM (AgDbn)
Posted by: annika at April 19, 2006 11:04 AM (zAOEU)
17
That's the kind of prompt editing that separates you from the competition....
Posted by: Blu at April 19, 2006 11:08 AM (AgDbn)
18
Yes, and I hit "publish" so many times, the RSS feeders must hate me.
Posted by: annika at April 19, 2006 11:28 AM (zAOEU)
19
The Democratic Party, Racial divisivness, and Class warfare since the 1830's.
Posted by: kyle8 at April 19, 2006 03:00 PM (38Hue)
20
Slogan: Vote Democrat, becuase it worked so well on
West Wing. [I'd add something about writing the story, but 10 words and all]
Oh, and the difference between Iowa and Ohio is that Ohio is just big enough to have pro sports teams in two cities while Iowa gets a triple-A team.
Posted by: KG at April 19, 2006 07:07 PM (SZsz5)
21
Actually, national security is making the Republicans' head hurt.
Free yourself from slogan slavery: Become an Independent
Posted by: will at April 20, 2006 08:16 AM (GzvlQ)
22
Some of the slogans were better than others. I laughed at the outright lies ("The Democratic Party: People are our only 'Special Interest.'"?), but at least some of them are capable of telling a story (the one I liked the best was "A Strong Nation and Economy through Fairness, Reason, and Community."; it sums up all the "It takes a village" stuff).
Despite all of the Republican problems in coming up with a cohesive story (Harry Reid didn't invent the felons clause), the Democrats are even more incompetent.
It might be more challenging for each party to come up with one word, not ten. For Democrats, perhaps they'd choose "Community." Republicans could choose "Freedom," Constitution Party "American." Too late to think of what the Greens and Socialist Workers would come up with. The Libertarians would say "We don't need no stinking one word limit! We'll say whatever we want, and take as long as we want to say it! So there! The Constitution did not impose any limits on our freedom of speech...."
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 20, 2006 10:25 PM (eY1H8)
23
Hey i'm still thinking of em,
"The Democratic Party: Where
no message is a good message!"
Posted by: annika at April 21, 2006 09:21 AM (fxTDF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bavarian Dingle Loaf?!
I must confess that I've never heard of Bavarian Dingle Loaf. But apparently it's like catnip to a kitten. Or a sex-kitten. The
Weekly World News confirms this fact:
HEY, GUYS! You can bed more babes than you can shake a stick at by feeding them a medley of three "sex foods" that drive women wild with desire: Raw oysters, foot-long weenies, and the Old World favorite, "Bavarian dingle loaf!"
I can't eat raw oysters. I got really sick off them about ten years ago, so I won't eat them anymore. I've never noticed any aphrodisiacal properties to the Dodger Dog (although they seem to have worked for Steve Garvey). But the Bavarian Dingle Loaf has me intrigued.
"Nothing is 100 percent, of course. But in nine cases out of 10, women who eat these foods are going to come on strong. And they aren't going to care what you look like or how much money you have.
Riiiiight.
"Bavarian dingle loaf is the icing on your cake. You can buy all the ingredients to make it from scratch. Or you can just do what I do: Buy a can of biscuit dough and knead it all together into a big ball.
"Then roll it out by hand into the shape of manly privates. You can even throw in family jewels on one end if you like."
Bill K., of Franklin, Tenn., says he tried the wonder foods on his female supervisor at work, "a real witch who hated my guts."
"I took oysters and the dingle bread to work, and gave them to her for lunch," he recalls. "The next thing you know we're in the stockroom doing it like Chihuahuas in heat.
"I even got a raise out of it!"
Lol, maybe he put too much yeast in the dingle bread.
Seriously though. I don't know how scientific this research is. But I'd be willing to bet if you showed up at work with a penis shaped pastry for your female boss, you'd probably be cleaning out your desk before lunch.
Update: In case your interested: Penis shaped cake pans. Or if you really curious, and you're not at work, here are examples of some finished products within that genre.
Posted by: annika at
06:08 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.
1
They forgot to mention the main ingredient in Dingle Loaf. Inside the loaf you must put a diamond bracelet.
Posted by: Jake at April 18, 2006 07:12 PM (XOf7A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, Episode 11
Posted by: annika at
07:18 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.
1
They just keep getting better. Now you have to keep this up, otherwise where else will we get our fix!
Posted by: OS at April 18, 2006 11:10 PM (5d6Ic)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 17, 2006
More Iran Stuff
Mark Steyn's
City Magazine essay [via
Hugh Hewitt] is my second must read recommendation for today.
Find it here and read the whole dang thing.
Key passages [all emphases mine]:
If Belgium becomes a nuclear power, the Dutch have no reason to believe it would be a factor in, say, negotiations over a joint highway project. But IranÂ’s nukes will be a factor in everything. If you think, for example, the European Union and others have been fairly craven over those Danish cartoons, imagine what theyÂ’d be like if a nuclear Tehran had demanded a formal apology, a suitable punishment for the newspaper, and blasphemy laws specifically outlawing representations of the Prophet. Iran with nukes will be a suicide bomber with a radioactive waist.
. . .
In 1989, with the Warsaw Pact disintegrating before his eyes, poor beleaguered Mikhail Gorbachev received a helpful bit of advice from the cocky young upstart on the block: “I strongly urge that in breaking down the walls of Marxist fantasies you do not fall into the prison of the West and the Great Satan,” Ayatollah Khomeini wrote to Moscow. “I openly announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the greatest and most powerful base of the Islamic world, can easily help fill up the ideological vacuum of your system.”
Today many people in the West don’t take that any more seriously than Gorbachev did. But it’s pretty much come to pass. As Communism retreated, radical Islam seeped into Africa and south Asia and the Balkans. Crazy guys holed up in Philippine jungles and the tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay who’d have been “Marxist fantasists” a generation or two back are now Islamists: it’s the ideology du jour.
. . .
With the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a British subject, Tehran extended its contempt for sovereignty to claiming jurisdiction over the nationals of foreign states, passing sentence on them, and conscripting citizens of other countries to carry it out. Iran’s supreme leader instructed Muslims around the world to serve as executioners of the Islamic Republic—and they did, killing not Rushdie himself but his Japanese translator, and stabbing the Italian translator, and shooting the Italian publisher, and killing three dozen persons with no connection to the book when a mob burned down a hotel because of the presence of the novelist’s Turkish translator.
IranÂ’s de facto head of state offered a multimillion-dollar bounty for a whack job on an obscure English novelist. And, as with the embassy siege, he got away with it.
. . .
[I]n the 17 years between the Rushdie fatwa and the cartoon jihad, what was supposedly a freakish one-off collision between Islam and the modern world has become routine. We now think it perfectly normal for Muslims to demand the tenets of their religion be applied to society at large: the government of Sweden, for example, has been zealously closing down websites that republish those Danish cartoons. As Khomeini’s successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, has said, “It is in our revolution’s interest, and an essential principle, that when we speak of Islamic objectives, we address all the Muslims of the world.” Or as a female Muslim demonstrator in Toronto put it: “We won’t stop the protests until the world obeys Islamic law.”
And this, which had me nodding my head at the irony so obvious, I hadn't noticed it until now:
Back when nuclear weapons were an elite club of five relatively sane world powers, your average Western progressive was convinced the planet was about to go ka-boom any minute. The mushroom cloud was one of the most familiar images in the culture, a recurring feature of novels and album covers and movie posters. There were bestselling dystopian picture books for children, in which the handful of survivors spent their last days walking in a nuclear winter wonderland. Now a state openly committed to the annihilation of a neighboring nation has nukes, and we shrug: CanÂ’t be helped. Just the way things are. One hears sophisticated arguments that perhaps the best thing is to let everyone get Â’em, and then no one will use them. And if IranÂ’s head of state happens to threaten to wipe Israel off the map, we should understand that this is a rhetorical stylistic device thatÂ’s part of the Persian oral narrative tradition, and it would be a grossly Eurocentric misinterpretation to take it literally.
Fine as this column was, you'll see me getting off the boat when Steyn concludes, somewhat ominously:
[W]e face a choice between bad and worse options. There can be no “surgical” strike in any meaningful sense: Iran’s clients on the ground will retaliate in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Europe. Nor should we put much stock in the country’s allegedly “pro-American” youth. This shouldn’t be a touchy-feely nation-building exercise: rehabilitation may be a bonus, but the primary objective should be punishment—and incarceration. It’s up to the Iranian people how nutty a government they want to live with, but extraterritorial nuttiness has to be shown not to pay. That means swift, massive, devastating force that decapitates the regime—but no occupation.
That time is coming, but I think we still have other options at present. So if Steyn is urging a military strike now (as he seems to be), I would disagree.
I think our main focus (while we still have the luxury of time) should be on fomenting internal opposition to the regime -- even what you might call internal strife. Take the mullahs minds off the outside world. Make them fear for their own survival. Promote a viable alternative to religious fascism, then give the people of Iran a gentle shove in that direction.
Sure, the days are gone when a Kermit Roosevelt could overthrow Mossadegh with about five guys, a pickup truck and 100 grand in "walking around money." But we can do it, with a little more of the same applied skullduggery, 21st Century style. The New York Times would have to be kept out of the loop, and I'm not sure that's possible when there's a whistleblower around every pentagon corner who thinks he's a hero with a book deal on the way.
Really though, as Steyn's article makes clear, there shouldn't be any debate about the stakes in this newest incarnation of the Great Game. And somebody needs to get on it.
Posted by: annika at
08:55 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1051 words, total size 7 kb.
1
Good posting, Annika.
I think that it's important that the mullahs, as well as the People, understand that the real danger to themselves is not Western society so much as it's Islamic threats to/of Western society. Iran's leader is a madman on a mission, and hopefully the young reformists AND the Islamists will soon realize that they are enemies with a common enemy and, for a time, unite much as Roosecelt and Churchill held their nose and allied with Stalin for a few years.
After that, we can deal with the progress of their society without the cloud of holocaust hanging.
It's amazing to watch the MSM refusing to see what's coming.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 17, 2006 11:48 PM (ZlOPi)
2
Now, let me play the white devil's advocate. If we take precipitous action against Iran, many things can happen, and they all seem bad.
1) We destabilise Iraq and undo all we have been trying to accomplish,( perhaps this problem will decline in time, but right now things are very shaky there
2) If there is any movement among Iranians to liberalize, we wil squash that
3) If we try to do it on the cheap and just use air power we will certainly fail. Then we open ourselves up to nuclear (or at least dirty bomb) retaliation as soon as they can do it.
4) If we topple the regime, (the only sure way to deal with the problem) we will be completely on our own with more than half of the country against the action, and all of our allies against it. The cost and problems will be at least like Iraq X 2.
So, I am sorry Mr. Steyn, and Mr. Hewit, I just dont see it happening. We WILL have to think of another way to deal with this situation.
Posted by: kyle8 at April 18, 2006 02:31 AM (74XnA)
3
I'm so sorry, kyle8, because bad things are going to happen. You can pretend bad things aren't going to happen. You can dislike the fact that bad things are going to happen. We can fight them now, or we can fight them later. Unless, of course, you plan to pray toward Mecca five times a day... You know, that "submit or die" business.
Now, before they have nukes, is better. Their president has made his intentions perfectly clear. I take him at his word.
Posted by: markD at April 18, 2006 08:13 AM (oQofX)
4
Remember all those really good reasons folks had for not confronting Hitler early......bad idea then and an even worse one now.
Posted by: Blu at April 18, 2006 08:43 AM (j8oa6)
5
Read this last week and it depressed me something fierce (also got me my first wee blog troll... YIPEE!). I think part of Steyn's essay is that a) an ugly painful decision needs to be made and that b) putting that decision off now (like Carter did) only makes the subsequent choices that much harder and uglier.
Right now we can decide between more "debate" and sanctions and a nuclear strike. If we keep putting the decision off until Iran actually gets nuclear bombs that can be strapped onto (working) missiles, that decision becomes tougher.
Posted by: JD at April 18, 2006 09:39 AM (xD5ND)
6
Kyle8 acting on something usually involves changing, or "destabilizing", it. I'm curious why people keep using this dumb excuse, the current situation of Iran going after nukes isn't a "stable" situation, so how can acting to change it be "destabilizing"? And since when is "destabilizing" always a bad thing? And how can we destabilize Iraq if it is already very shaky?
...But we shouldn't attack or anything because part of this country doesn't comprehend the situation thanks to lax Media coverage (witness for example the cover story on Time a week or two ago -- Be afraid, Very afraid! of what? Not Fundamentalist Muslims Assholes with a bomb. No its global warming!)
Posted by: Scof at April 18, 2006 11:41 AM (a3fqn)
7
The comparison with hitler and germany is tedious at best. Iran is not Germany, and this is not 1938.
To speak of this as inevitable is also a bit much.
Nothing is inevitable and we have not explored all options. Furthermore, there is time to act, and the longer we can safely put it off the better for the situation in Iraq,
Oh and BTW yes! I think the situation in Iraq is terribly important. The only way we can really justify our going in there in the first place was to change a destabilizing regime and to place a free government in place so it could be an example to the rest of the region. That could all be in danger, and yes that is a major consideration.
Most of the arguments I have heard revolve around fear, Fear that as soon as the Iranians have a bomb they will nuke us or Israel. I don't believ that will happen for one minute. The have a silly man up there as the mouthpeice of the mullahs who talks a big talk. But that is because the regime is shaky and is sabre rattling for its own domestic market. If they were so gung ho and ready to die, they would not have made peace with the hated Sadam after they had began to win that war.
For that matter they would have attacked us when we invaded Iraq. They are evil but not stupid.
Posted by: kyle8 at April 18, 2006 12:02 PM (Oj7r7)
8
look, the comparisons to Hitler are a bit overblown, and not a real argument.
Now i admitted we might HAVE to attack them, but it should be at the last possible safe moment. the more time we have the more options might appear, also, the more we stabilise Iraq.
and yes! That is an important thing! The main reason I could justify going into iraq in the first place was to try to create a stable, free government that would be an example to the region, that could all be in danger. And that is not anything to sneeze at.
There is also the almost casual assumption that the Iranians will use their nuke if they get one.
I dont think so. They talk a good talk but they have not acted like the zealots they like to appear to be, The did nothing to us when we invaded Iraq, and they even made peace with the hated Saddam after they began to get the upper hand in that war. And they are not run by just one man, so in some ways they scare me less than N. Korea who is run by one crazy man.
Now I don't want them to have a bomb but we have to be realistic. it wont always be possible to stop every regime we dont like in getting nukes.
Posted by: kyle8 at April 18, 2006 12:17 PM (Oj7r7)
9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
Posted by: Blu at April 18, 2006 01:01 PM (AgDbn)
10
or:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
Yes, Kyle, I know comparisons are never perfect; but, it is always good to learn from mistakes. Another thing to consider: you reason like a rational thinking, Western person. Try putting yourself into the head(s) of non-Western, religious fanatics, who think you and yours are sub-human pieces of garbage.
By the way, I think your position is reasonable. I'm just a bit more worried about an Iranian threat than you. History will dictate which one of us is "correct."
p.s. a link to the true architect of the current Iranian "problem" (and the larger middle-eastern mess)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter
I don't care how many fucking houses he builds for the poor; he is/was a disaster for this country.
Posted by: Blu at April 18, 2006 01:14 PM (AgDbn)
11
Kyle,
"The main reason I could justify going into iraq in the first place was to try to create a stable, free government that would be an example to the region, that could all be in danger. And that is not anything to sneeze at."
No argument from me there.
"There is also the almost casual assumption that the Iranians will use their nuke if they get one."
We all hope that if they get one, they won't use it. But it's criminal negligence at best, and suicide at worst, to plan public policy on that hope. Even if it turns out to be true. Without a crystal ball to inform us otherwise, we
have to assume that an enemy with a terrible weapon would be willing to use it against us or our allies. And the "rhetoric" currently coming out of Iran should lead any reasonable person to lean towards the assumption that they will do as they say. Just for the sake of being on the safe side.
So sure, believe whatever you want to believe about Iran's intentions. That's cool. But I want leaders over here who are preparing under the assumption that our enemy will strike us, rather than assuming that they won't. That's the only way we will do what needs to be done.
And IMHO what needs to be done is to find a way to defuse the situation
without attacking Iran, while we still have the chance to do that. Because if we wait too long, or blow it, we won't have any choice and we
will have to attack them. (Either that or just pretend that Iran with a bomb won't be a problem, which is just crazy talk.)
Posted by: annika at April 18, 2006 02:22 PM (zAOEU)
12
Annika,
A small personal aside, if I may, since the Rushdi fatwa was mentioned in the article.
While eating lunch with my office manager during that period, (an American women of Jamaican heritage who I knew was a follower of Islam), I asked her if she happened to be standing next to a gunman about to shoot Salman and his kids, would she do anything to help them. SHe politely answered she would do nothing that was against the wishes of the leaders of her faith.
As to the question of what to do about Iran.
Firstly, it is going to be years until they have enough enriched material to make a bomb. They have made a bit of 3-5% (Low enriched Uranium). A far cry from the 2.2 kilos of nearly 90% enrichment needed for a bomb. The ability to weaponize their highly enriched uranium (HEU) once it is produced to the point where a missle can deliver it is, some estimate is more than 8 years away. A lot can happen in that amount of time.
Those who toss out Chamberlain are being simplistic readers of history to suit their displeasure with the situation of Iran having some sort of a nulcear capability that might become a threat. There is a long row to hoe before the situation gets out of hand(a threat we could not control) and I for one, do not think our country will attack and will not use a nuke to decommission their capability.There are still many diplomatic routes to travel. DO you think the Russians would be thrilled with Iran having a weapon?
DOes anyone think, despite how crazy this MF'er is that he rules a country as big and complex as Iran, there are no sane people in various places around him? And that faced with the prospect of their country and all their brothers and sisters being turned into a sheet of glass they will allow a nuke to be lobbed at Israel? It takes the cooperation of a lot a people to attempt a nuclear missle strike or even the shipping container scenario. Call me naive (you have called me far worse) but i don't think this is such a big deal.
Posted by: strawman at April 18, 2006 06:55 PM (o/gnC)
13
Blu is right, there is something decidedly unwestern about someone strapping on a bomb and visiting an Israeli Mall for the last time. Some of these folks are different.
I have also had conversations with those of the Muslim faith, on this soil, and heard no tangible regret about 911 but considerable contempt for our president and our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Enjoy the American way of life, prosper under capitalism, and hold in highest regard the United States that makes it all possible? Not anymore. I'm sure, and sure hoping, this is not the common setiment. I do admit my name isn't Gallop or Zogby.
Strawman makes a good point about Iran using the thing when it's ready. It would certainly be their end, but I would have considered taking U.S. citizens hostage crazy too- before it happened there.
Posted by: Mike C. at April 18, 2006 08:05 PM (y6n8O)
14
Odysseus dispells some myths about the "overthrow" of a "democratically-elected" Mossadegh gov't in Iran.......
http://tinyurl.com/m9dqs
Posted by: reagan80 at April 19, 2006 03:51 AM (K9tdw)
15
Straw,
Like Kyle, you proffer a very reasonable, sane western worldview vis a vis Iran. I hope you are right. If you are not, we've got HUGE problems. I think better safe than sorry....especially when dealing with Islamofascists. And I think my Chamberlaind reference is apropos when considering whether we are under-estimating or burying our heads in the sand with respect to the evil with which we are dealing.
You don't get two chances to get this right....
Posted by: Blu at April 19, 2006 09:26 AM (AgDbn)
16
Lost in this debate, was this brilliant bit of analysis and witty writing:
"The NYT would have to be kept out of the loop and I'm not sure that's possible..."
and this is the best part
"....when there's a whistleblower around every pentagon corner who thinks he's a hero with a book deal on the way."
So, true. I wonder how many greedy, spineless lefties are willing to throw their country under the bus for a few bucks and their "15 minutes?"
Posted by: Blu at April 20, 2006 10:09 AM (AgDbn)
Posted by: Shelly at June 27, 2006 11:42 AM (V029I)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Phishing: It's Not Just From Africa Anymore
I just got a spam e-mail with a new twist. I'm sure you have all gotten those poorly written e-mails from Ojibwe Mumbojibwe of Nigeria, asking for your assistance in an "urgent matter." Well now they've gotten wiser. Here's the twist:
Good day,
My name is Sgt. John Crews Loius, I am an American soldier, I serve in the Military of the 1st Armored Division in Iraq, as you know we have being attacked by insurgents everyday and car bombs. We where lucky to move funds belonging to Saddam Hussein?s family hopping it was a bomb in the box, later we find out it was a fiscal cash .
The total amount is US$25,000,000 Twenty Five Million United State dollars in cash, mostly 100 dollar bills which is still in our co sturdy at the military base camp, now we find it as a Big Risk on us if our commandant nor the Iraqis People get to find out about this box of money because we are not allowed to have any money in our position for that We are seeking for a trustworthy foreign business partner who can help us in receiving this box of money
so that He/She may invest it for us and keep our share for banking. This is our plan of sharing my partner and I will take 55%, you take the other 45%.
No stress attached, for we have made all necessary arrangement for shipping it out of Iraq, Iraq is a war zone. We planed on using diplomatic courier service for shipping the money out in one large silver box declaring it as family valuables using diplomatic immunity.
Losers. They couldn't even spell the name right. Whoever is doing this really needs to brush up on English grammar and spelling if they're going to try this approach. It makes sense if you're posing as Ojibwe, but not if you're trying to sound like an American.
Posted by: annika at
06:30 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I wonder if he's related to Tom Crews or Robert Loius Stevenson.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at April 17, 2006 06:54 PM (XUsiG)
2
I think that maybe I will write them back and offer to correct the spelling and grammar of their letter in exchance for a cut of the profits. *smile*
Posted by: Vonski at April 17, 2006 09:44 PM (3dEKJ)
3
I will start with my own comment as proof of my high-quality work. Exchance=exchange... see how good I am?! Imagine the wonders I could do for your business.
Posted by: Vonski at April 17, 2006 09:45 PM (3dEKJ)
4
How could you pass up an opportunity for some cold hard FISCAL cash. I've never seen it myself, but I hear fiscal cash is 70% gooder than the ordinary kind.
Posted by: JD at April 18, 2006 09:41 AM (xD5ND)
5
Yeah,
that variety of 419 fraud -- the stuff purporting to be from a "US soldier" -- has been popping up for quite a while now, pretty much since the end of the war. Heck, there's even
Afghanistan versions of it.
The scary thing is, I
have seen real examples of writing that makes this writer's english skills seem close to perfect. An old college roomate of mine hailing from the Arab Emirates had to teach a remedial English writing class as part of his English-as-a-Second-Language program. Oh. My.
GOD! Some of these freshmen's papers were
soooooo bad... you wonder how they got into college to begin with (well, it
was a state college... all you need to get in is an SAT score and a pulse, and I don't think they check for the pulse...). When a foreign guy who started learning English at age 17 is busting out laughing at how poor the language skills are of these
native speaking students... well... that pretty much illustrates how bad it was.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 18, 2006 01:59 PM (xHyDY)
6
The people who fall for these types of emails aren't going to worry about grammar, and aren't going to wonder how a sergeant gets access to a diplomatic pouch.
My favorite 419 story is
one in which the "victim" turned the tables on the solicitor.
Mike told me how he baited...Prince Joe Eboh.
"I'm sure he's not a prince at all," Mike says. "He contacted me with a standard 419 [so-called after a section of Nigeria's legal code]....
"I tried to turn it round by saying I worked for a church and we couldn't do any business with people who are not of our faith."
Mike sent a response in the name of Father Hector Barnett of the Church of the Painted Breast....
"Now I knew the guy would write back and say: 'Well, can I join your faith?' and indeed he did," says Mike....
So he wrote:
Dear Joe,
Our ministry was founded in 1774 by a wonderful lady by the name of Betsy Carrington. She spent many of her first preaching years in Kenya, spreading the holy gospel amongst the local people there. She was the first person male or female to promote Christian texts and beliefs to the Masai warrior tribe.
The most famous account is when as a test she had to remove the top part of her clothes and paint the top half of her body and breast with the red Masai war-paint as a gesture of faith and belief to them so that they would accept her and trust her. She was almost immediately accepted by them and was one of the most trusted westerners known at that time.
As a qualification to enter the Holy Church of The Order of The Red Breast, all followers must go through the initiation procedure that Miss Carrington made so famous. I have attached a photograph of four of our young inductees going through the procedure.
Please use this picture to enable you to make the same marking on yourself. I have also attached a small picture showing the design in more detail. I look forward to welcoming you into our membership my brother.
Father Hector Barnett Financial Development - Holy Church of The Order of The Red Breast.
And the Prince sent back a picture with a 9 over his nipple.
And the story gets better. Here's the original
BBC article, including pictures of topless men.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 20, 2006 10:41 PM (eY1H8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Is This True?
Wretchard posted a story [from I do not know where], which is simply horrifying.
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. ... After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran's forces were no match for Saddam Hussein's professional, well-armed military. To compensate ... Khomeini sent Iranian children ... to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child's neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.
At one point, however, the earthly gore became a matter of concern. ... Such scenes would henceforth be avoided ... Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves."
These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 ... And yet, today, it is a source not of national shame, but of growing pride. Since the end of hostilities against Iraq in 1988, the Basiji have grown both in numbers and influence. They have been deployed, above all, as a vice squad to enforce religious law in Iran, and their elite "special units" have been used as shock troops against anti-government forces. In both 1999 and 2003, for instance, the Basiji were used to suppress student unrest. And, last year, they formed the potent core of the political base that propelled Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-- a man who reportedly served as a Basij instructor during the Iran-Iraq War--to the presidency. ... He regularly appears in public wearing a black-and-white Basij scarf, and, in his speeches, he routinely praises "Basij culture" and "Basij power" ... A younger generation of Iranians, whose worldviews were forged in the atrocities of the Iran-Iraq War, have come to power, wielding a more fervently ideological approach to politics than their predecessors. The children of the Revolution are now its leaders.
Is this true?
Clash of civilizations my eye. If that actually happened, those are the acts of barbarians -- worse than barbarians -- and not anything near civilized men.
Posted by: annika at
10:23 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Regardless if this story is true, the Islamic world is barbaric. There are plenty of other well documented events to support this view. Even the comments by Hamas associated to the Passover Tel Aviv bombing are yet another illustration of a truly uncivilized people. Unfortunately, this makes the work in Iraq even more difficult. I must admit that prior to this war I never could have imagined the total depravity of Islam as a religion and as a cultural force. I still believe there are good people in the Islamic world, but they are a distinct minority and will have to do literally heroic work in order to change things internally. And, finally, this is why the current struggle with Iran is so very scary.
Posted by: Blu at April 17, 2006 10:53 AM (j8oa6)
2
There is no doubt that Iran substituted people for machines in the Iraqi war. That is why over a million Iranian's were killed in that war.
Life is very, very cheap in Iran. That is why Israel will cease to exist once Iran has the bomb.
Posted by: Jake at April 17, 2006 10:55 AM (XOf7A)
3
He got it from a Matthias Kuntzel article in The New Republic.....
http://tinyurl.com/zb2pa
Posted by: reagan80 at April 17, 2006 10:55 AM (K9tdw)
4
The stories of the Basiji are true. I don't remember the year, mid-'80s, Time ran several stories about the Iran/Iraq War, in at least one of them was a section about moms knitting socks with Quranic slogans on them for their boy soldiers, many as young as 10. This has been documented by Amnesty International and the INRC. The current outrage over child soldiers in Africa will fade away just as it did over the Basiji, and Pol Pot's child soldiers in the '70s. And Mao's child soldiers in the '30s and '40s. It is a pattern that repeats all thru recorded history, and I am sure before it.
Posted by: 2Hotel9 at April 18, 2006 03:01 PM (RfREf)
5
An acquaintance of mine from the Naval Academy is the son of Iranian immigrants. During the Iran-Iraq War his parents returned to Iran to visit family. (Since he's about my age, he must've been between roughly ten and eighteen,. I have the impression that he was closer to ten.) They left him behind. They knew full well what was happening to children his age in Iran, and were afraid that if they took him along he'd be drafted. So yeah, it's true. (See also
this, and
this.)
Posted by: Matt at April 20, 2006 06:57 AM (10G2T)
6
perhaps we could get the liberals on board with us against Iran, if we tell them that Iran violated child labor laws.
Posted by: annika at April 20, 2006 07:14 AM (fxTDF)
7
Annika,
If you could document that Nike or SeanJohn was going to open a plant in Iran I might buy some surplus desert camos wittle a m-16 from some scrap laying around the shop and enlist!
Boy, what simple shit passes for humor around here! Liberals would like Iran to nuke Israel but would fight for labor laws? You are scary sometimes. Cheap shots are the ammo of those that still think guns win wars.
Posted by: Strawman at April 20, 2006 01:49 PM (o/gnC)
8
Annika can easily defend herself, so I'll leave that to her.
But two things:
1.Guns do win wars. Always have; always will.
2. Annika's comment illustrates in a comical way misplaced liberal priorities.
But, you're a smart guy, Straw, so I suspect you already figured that.....
Posted by: Blu at April 20, 2006 03:46 PM (AgDbn)
9
Yup, Blu,
Guns are really winning the "war" in Iraq. But, hey, your a smart guy Blu, you already knew that.
I think what's comical is the disingenuous reading of your "opponents" position and the smug repetition of criticisms that you know are not true. But that is the Rove-Chaney-Bush mantra. Tell the public what their opponents didnÂ’t say, then tell the public why they are wrong. When speaking to a public as dumb and uniformed as ours, its no wonder 75% thought Saddam sponsored the 911 attack in league with OBL
Posted by: Strawman at April 20, 2006 04:36 PM (o/gnC)
10
And if you read any Stephen Hayes and have been keeping an eye on the documents coming out of Iraq, you'd know that there is more and more proof that Iraq collaborated with I.Q. You also know that S.H. wanted people to think he WMD.
By the way, how long did it take to win WWII? How long did it take for Washington et al to defeat the British? How long did it take the Union to beat the confederacy? Talk about " disingenuous reading of your 'opponents' position and the smug repetition of criticisms that you know are not true." Guns win wars; they don't always determinie the length of them. They are a necessary though not always sufficient variable in winning.
Straw, I really do think you smart. Your posts prove it. But your side has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy issue of the past century (e.g. communism and the USSR.) And you guys are wrong on Iraq and the middle east generally.
Posted by: Blu at April 20, 2006 07:10 PM (QKxxC)
11
Really nice interesting site. thank you for it)
Posted by: hair styles at June 11, 2006 07:00 AM (3zUBD)
12
The story about Iran forcibly sending children over minefields with plastic keys is false.
What is interesting though, is how this story has spread, without anyone apparently questioning it.
-Jahan
Posted by: Jahan at June 12, 2006 11:34 AM (Aes76)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Recommended Reading
E.M.
proves again why she is a daily must read.
Daily, mind you.
Posted by: annika at
09:40 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
105kb generated in CPU 0.0287, elapsed 0.0882 seconds.
79 queries taking 0.0677 seconds, 294 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.