Didn't Sun-tzu write something about planning ahead and making contingency plans?

Or maybe it was Stephen Covey.

According to the Borgen Project, peace and security in the Middle East and elsewhere can be achieved through the Millennium Development Goals!

try to drive oil prices into the ground by increasing production and cutting its own prices in half. Now, as far as I know, Saudi Arabia doesn't actually have much in the way of spare capacity at the moment, so this seems like a bit of an empty threat.

It may be an empty threat to pump more. But selling their oil at a cheaper price is not, the Saudis are making hefty profits at the moment and could live with earning less. And they are a big enough oil producer that such a dumping price action would affect the overall market.

Market prices are not just a function of quantitative demand and supply, but also of who is willing to sell or buy at any given price.

Yay.

Region-wide conflagration. With the potential for nukes and genocide. I guess this takes democracy off the table.

Heckuva job, Shrubsy.

Driving oil prices into the ground would be a good thing for America, wouldn't it?

Having the Saudis take their turn getting shot at along with cheaper gas is a bad thing because...?

Because American oil companies begin to scream.

What khr said. Besides, who's to say that the Saudis don't have their own oil reserve, which they could sell out of?

Anyway, excellent. So now the US is stuck with this tarbaby until we go broke. Nice one, Shrub.

Worst President Ever seems like too mild a label, at this point.

Obaid takes to the pages of the Washington Post to warn us in no uncertain terms that if we try to withdraw from Iraq, the Saudi monarchy will make us very, very sorry:

I can already hear the stirring martial anthem of the Saudi Army: "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war...."

The pResident "looked" like he was making some adjustments in his "course" until the last few days when it look like he was taking two steps back. Maybe these comments go a way to explaining that.

Cool. We may see a civil war yet. Hope they both loose.

Kevin,

If I were you I would take the Saudi threat to oil prices very very seriously. The American line on limited reserves is BS and the world extra-US knows it. Even endless hidden M3 dumpings over the next two years couldn't counter balance the price pressure the Saud's can bring down on the US, and particularly the elite US Bush political base.

I would say the crisis is at the boiling point. The Sauds want us to back the Sunnis and the Israelis want us to back the Shia. I guess we're about to find out whose chain is tighter...

They called Cheney in and not Bush to make their threat explicitly clear. Bush they are forcing to jump through hoops on camera, Cheney is the guy whose policy has brought about the current disaster. If I were a Washington Monthly publisher I would go short on oil right about now.

Saudi Arabia in a proxy with Iran in Iraq ?
with the US and China in supporting roles ?

suh-weet!

fan-fucking-tastic job, Bushie.

When the House of Saud kicks in some green and puts some boots on the ground, then they can call the tune.

(that should've been "Saudi Arabia in a proxy war with Iran in Iraq" -- of course)

WTF?

The Saudis have been funding and supporting Wahhabism and Al Qaeda from the start - so how is this any different?

Who gives a shit? Start building electric cars and solar power farms. The sooner Americans realize the truth about the evil Saudi regime, and their role in oppressing people throughout their miserable region, the better.

Driving oil prices into the ground would be a good thing for America, wouldn't it?

not if your definition of "America" is top-heavy with American (and America-friendly) oil companies.

I now see that Bush and the Neo Cons are geniuses.

If the U.S. military withdraws from Iraq then Iran and Saudi Arabia will provide the regional balance of power that will serve U.S. interests (or at least keep them from starting a war with Israel).

Brilliant.

regional war is a certainty.
.

it can get worse in Iraq than the course we're already on? oh really? democracy is still on the march? to anyone who ever thought this war was a great idea, please go to hell.

Vote for a president and you get a prince.

Literally.

We can only hope to avoid a Rwanda-like genocide in Iraq. That's victory now.

Saudi royalty are cowards, second only to the Bush family. They have no people willing to follow them to war. If the Saudis should arm their people to fight alongside the Iraqi Baathists, Arabia will become a secular state and the royal families destroyed. That might actually be a good thing.

I have my doubts that the Saudis actually have the capacity to intervene all that effectively with military assistance to Iraq's Sunni community either.

Do you mean short of sending in their F-16s? Cuz they have a few hundred of those. Dunno what else.

in 2004:
..."Riyadh is now cleared to acquire 24 UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters, 58 M1A2S Abrams tanks, 724 light-armored vehicles, 1,700 night vision goggles, and thousands of radio systems. The sales also include upgrades for 315 M1A2 tanks and 12 AH-64A Apache attack helicopters already in the Saudi arsenal. Since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Saudi Arabia has amassed significant quantities of foreign weaponry. An August 2005 CRS report identified Saudi Arabia as receiving nearly $55 billion in arms imports from 1997 to 2004, ranking it as the top arms importer for that period among developing world countries. This total far surpassed the second-highest tally of $13 billion for China."

So wait - it sounds like the House of Saud and their friends in America just got manipulated into a war in Iraq by the (pro-Isreali?) neo-cons, resulting in the loss of a Sunni-controlled nation to the Shi'ites.

Maybe because of this error in judgement, the House of Saud's position as the protector of the (Sunni) faith is seriously at risk. Or maybe this just means that they're afraid they won't be able to treat their own Shi'ite minority with contempt any more.

But if the Shi'a minority and the Yemenis ever get together, the Sauds will be out. They came from desert tribe stock, but may have gotten too fat and lazy to keep out the next wave of desert tribesmen.

The Sauds and the Ayatollahs in a steel cage desert Deathmatch, while oil prices skyrocket to $200/barrel?

Cool by me....

Do you mean short of sending in their F-16s? Cuz they have a few hundred of those. Dunno what else.

I was in a bar in the Middle East once, listening to a war story about how, in the Gulf War, the US and British pilots had to box in an Iraqi plane that was trying to flee to Iran, and then coax a Saudi pilot into shooting it down, so our coalition appeared legitimate.

The Pakistani mercenaries that are rumored to make up at least one armored brigade of the Saudi army are probably pretty good fighters, though.

The Pakistani mercenaries that are rumored to make up at least one armored brigade of the Saudi army are probably pretty good fighters, though.

Which side will they fight for? Democracy and the West or Authoritarian Theocracy?

Wapiti: But if the Shi'a minority and the Yemenis ever get together, the Sauds will be out. They came from desert tribe stock, but may have gotten too fat and lazy to keep out the next wave of desert tribesmen.

That's what Ibn Khaldun said. In the 14th century, he developed a cyclical theory of Arab history that begins with a holy desert rabble rouser rousing the desert rabble with tales of urban debauchery and ungodliness. The rabble invade and take over the urban areas. Their children remember the reason for the rebellion and keep at least the slogans, but by two more generations, they are just like the people they took over from, and a new rabble rouser rouses a new rabble with tales of the debauchery and ungodliness.

As an interesting historical note, Abdul Assiz Ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi Arabia, announced to his people his accession to the throne by tossing the head of his predecessor off a parapet into a crowd. This may be what they have to look forward to for themselves, except this royal family is much, much larger than the one it replaced, so there is more blood available to flow if it happens.

And while he's at it, Obaid tosses out a warning to Iran the American oil industry that Saudi Arabia might also try to drive oil prices into the ground by increasing production and cutting its own prices in half.

Oh, my gosh, flooding the market with cheap oil.

Whatever will this do to Kevin Drum's peak oil theory? Drum believes the Saudi's have no oil left.

PBS Frontline said that the Saudi's threatened to embargo oil to punish the US for it's Israeli support when Lyndon B. Johnson was president, to which Johnson wanted to declare war on the Saudis over US "economic security" at the very same time that the US was deep into the Vietnam war.

Also don't forget that right after Dick Cheney and Bush declared we had an energy crisis, Saddam Hussein flooded the market with oil and also pleaded with OPEC to do the same.

This goes to show you that OPEC agreed to price fix right along with Western oil companies. It's not a peak oil thing, it's a price fixing game.

Saudi Arabia's military is puny compared to Irans. Expect mass desertions and incompetence if the Saudi military is called into battle - they are abject cowards. They will try to hire poor Pakistanis to fight for them, thats more their style.

Had we gone on a crash program to become energy-independent after 9-11, which would have been a sensible response to that tragedy, we wouldn't be worrying about the Saudis cutting off production.

"Peak oil theory" is not a Kevin Drum exclusive.

additional support for staying in Iraq:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_5

Back on topic: does anybody believe anything that the Saudis say? Inaction is their principal contribution to modern life; all they do with oil is watch foreigners pump it up and ship it out.

Back on topic: does anybody believe anything that the Saudis say?

Perhaps more aptly, does anyone believe anything Matthew R. "papago" Marler says?

If they did what they say they would do they might be very, very sorry to find out what their own Shiites might do to them.

So another good reason for a quick withdrawal -- it's a way to give the Saudis a long overdue "Fuck you".

But of course, Bush and Cheney and the gang gotta defer to their bosses. Gutless swine.....

Well we know the Iranians will fight. They fought the Arab worlds most advanced military to a stand still for 8 years and this is despite Saddam having US and European help.

They would eat the Saudis for breakfast and be annexing largely Shia occupied areas of the kingdom by lunch. Unless of course someone jumped in to save the saudis.

Who would that be? MMMMM?

This won't affect our tax cuts, right?

Saudi Arabia's military is puny compared to Irans. Expect mass desertions and incompetence if the Saudi military is called into battle - they are abject cowards. They will try to hire poor Pakistanis to fight for them, thats more their style.

As a punchline, "Saudi Arabian saber rattling" is right up there with "Dick Cheney teaches hunting safety".

I don't think anyone is worried about the Saudis sending in troops; I think they are worried about them sending in vast amounts of money and materiel to the existing Sunni population. Including, say, the sort of weapons that can shoot down American air power.

Well well.

Cheney and his boy Bush went after the tar baby in Iraq, and look at the mess they're in now!

Klyde: They would eat the Saudis for breakfast and be annexing largely Shia occupied areas of the kingdom by lunch. Unless of course someone jumped in to save the saudis.

Who would that be? MMMMM?

Given that we fought Iraq the first time after Saddam invaded Kuwait, who had explicitly rejected a mutual defense treaty with us, and given that Saudi Arabia has signed such a treaty with us, has more oil, and has the Bushes' personal relationship with the Saudi royal family to call in chits on, I think it is exactly as you suggest. Riyadh would become the new central front in the GWOT.

Y'know, if Bush weren't the clueless incompetent that he so clearly is, he'd take moments like this to pull off his own "Nixon goes to China" moment. He'd tell the fucking Saudis that they can linger in the 8th Century as long as they want, and he'd make overtures to the one nation in the region that at least has some of the forms and rituals of representative government -- Iran. Weren't any Iranians involved in September 11....

Steve Clemons over at the Washington Note has a bit to say about this topic, icyww.

"Obaid takes to the pages of the Washington Post to warn us in no uncertain terms that if we try to withdraw from Iraq, the Saudi monarchy will make us very, very sorry..." Kevin, I've been underestimating you. Spot on.

The American public has shown that it can take it abuse, and mother is more than happy to once again, look the other way, when daddy inflict what's necessary to get us to DO WHAT HE WANTS.

Scarry times. We're being threatened to stay in Iraq.

well i didn't tell them to go f' themselves...

I wouldn't be so sure. Cheney stays mad and he has a limited vocabulary.

This goes to show you that OPEC agreed to price fix right along with Western oil companies. It's not a peak oil thing, it's a price fixing game.
Posted by: Cheryl on November 30, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Cheryl gets it!

Scarry times. We're being threatened to stay in Iraq.
Posted by: SueM on November 30, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Oh come now! Bush even admitted it on National TV - we can't let those evul terrorists use control of the oil supply as a weapon against the West.

And we certainly can't look for alternative energy sources. That would mean his Aramco and Carlyle partners wouldn't be able to price-gouge for gasoline and bombs.

he'd make overtures to the one nation in the region that at least has some of the forms and rituals of representative government -- Iran.

Ain't it the truth.

The Sauds may arm the Sunnis in their battle against the Shiites armed by Iran? We should encourage the House of Saud to do just that. We need a balance of power in Iraq.

The op-ed is interesting for what it DOESN'T say. Obaid doesn't say explicitly what conditions would make it acceptable for the US to leave and he doesn't say why or how Abdullah has failed to "reconcile" Sunni-Shi'a tensions -- or why he thinks Bush can do a better job than Abdullah himself.

In other words, the US in his mind are there to do one thing: stop the Shiite militias from exterminating the Sunni. By force. Which short of waving a magic wand would require the US to essentially hunt down and disarm the militias before we leave. Which would require, what, 200,000 more troops? 400,000?

Faith-based foreign policy: it's what's for dinner.

Nawaf Obaid sounds like a bit of a eccentric.

If the Saudis feel so strongly about Iraq Sunni tribes, they can't simply open their borders to refuges. Certainly that must be cheaper than outfitting militas.

If the Saudis feel so strongly about Iraq Sunni tribes, they can't simply open their borders to refuges. Certainly that must be cheaper than outfitting militas.
Posted by: Cheryl on November 30, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

Cheryl, we're in some kind of groove together today.

The Saudi Shiites should move to Iraq, and the Iraqi Sunnis can move to Saudi Arabia.

Then they'll live in peace. Right?

If the Saudis feel so strongly about Iraq Sunni tribes, they can't simply open their borders to refuges. Certainly that must be cheaper than outfitting militas.

I suspect you meant "can't they" rather than "they can't", but "they can't" is right: the Saudi monarchy isn't that secure as it is; opening the borders to a bunch of radicalized Sunnis from Iraq that have been radicalized by ideologies that are very closely attached to those of the domestic opponents of the Saudi monarchy would be the death knell for the regime.

"Now, as far as I know, Saudi Arabia doesn't actually have much in the way of spare capacity at the moment, so this seems like a bit of an empty threat."

Ha! For all you know, the Saudis have invented a way to "water-down" their oil, making more of it. I can guarantee that the feckless execs at BP would not know the difference.

Pushing the oil price down is supposed to be a threat? Please don't fling me in that briar patch...

the Saudi monarchy isn't that secure as it is;

Cry me a river for the poor beleagered sheiks.

Oh - if the radical wahhabists fringe among the Sunnis give them any trouble, they'll tell them it's all Israel's and America's fault, and just pay them off with the oil profits. Like they have always done.

Given that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudis and that the 28 pages expunged from the 9-11 Commission Report were about the Saudi royal family's funding of al-Qaeda, remind me again why we attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia???

And in other encouraging news, Baghdad Burning is in suspended animation, awaiting either renewal or deletion ... maybe Riverbend's decided to get outta Dodge.

Don't be so quick (Cheryl and OBL) to cheer on ethnic cleansing. So many more things are involved than living "safely" with "one's own." Saudi society isn't very pleasant unless you're a royal (unemployment is high; most of the good jobs are farmed out to foreigners). They're not any happier with an incipient refugee crisis than would be Iran with an influx of (non-Persian) Iraqi Shiites. There are huge status, family and tribal dislocations, plus resentful locals, not to mention national governments. It's easy armchair advocacy ...

Cheering on Saudi Arabia in a proxy war with Iran with Iraq as the battlefield is kind of like cheering on Balkan intrigue prior to the First World War. That is absolutely the last thing any sane, humane person should wish for. If we look, on the surface, like patsies for letting a Saudi "boss us around" -- well, the dude happens to be correct. The thing that tribalisms don't understand about democracy is constitutionally-protected minority rights (hell, we didn't understand it ourselves until long after the Civil War). We're not there to protect the Sunnis *per se*. We *are* there -- if for any legit reason at all -- to prevent a genocidal bloodbath by a superempowered majority.

I want us to withdraw as much as anybody. But we have to accept the fact that by withdrawing our own troops -- somebody is going to fill the power vaccuum -- and a regional war, in nobody's best interests, is the most likely outcome.

Bob

I want us to withdraw as much as anybody. But we have to accept the fact that by withdrawing our own troops -- somebody is going to fill the power vaccuum -- and a regional war, in nobody's best interests, is the most likely outcome.

A war in the region is not an "outcome" of "withdrawing our troops", its something that began the day the US launched an invasion.

I agree that a regional war was in noone's best interests, its too bad the US started one. But there's nothing productive for US troops to continue to do there, and US troops continuing to die won't stop the chaos from spiralling out of control.

Pushing the oil price down is supposed to be a threat?

To Iran, sure.

The threat to us is that they'll make Iran mad enough that Iran will then cause problems for everyone, including us.

Of course, since that mostly means that Iran would be crushing the Saudi regime like a bug, that's not a particularly credible threat; its kind of like the Sheriff in Blazing Saddles.

Agree wholeheartedly with Kevin's comment. My one contribution is that I think the Saudi position is to some extent bluff and bluster, meant to discourage the US from executing the "Shia tilt" option that Laura Rozen described: assuming that the Shias will win the civil war and stepping aside and letting them pound the Sunni insurgents. Facts on the groundwise, I think the Shias will have the upper hand in Iraq and there's only so much the Saudis, with or without US support, can do to help the Sunni.

cmdicely:

I understand your reasoning but I don't quite agree with you. While Iraq is sliding into a full-blown civil war, currently it's not a regional war. Our troops prevent that, and I think this Saudi presents an accurate read of the panic of his regime at the prospect.

If we pull out in the wrong way and the entire region conflagrates -- then yes, Chris, that *will* be our responsibility and it *will* be directly caused by that particular decision.

It may be inevitable regardless. And it may have been preordained in a sense from the moment we invaded. But it doesn't excuse the blood on our hands as American citizens. The moral implications of full-fledged, multinational war in the Mideast are absolutely monstrous to contemplate and make our leftist, war-opponent snickering at Bush's folly which is currently contained in Iraq pretty goddamned callow as seen in the bigger picture ...

Bob

裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电

"Pushing the oil price down is supposed to be a threat?

To Iran, sure."

china.

cheaper oil might be good for the US, but it's even better for china.And when the chinese trade reps pitch up to talk to the saudis and make it clear they don't care about saudi internal politics (ie no complaints about democracy) and chinese oil companies will get special deals ?

And with cheaper oil how much more damage will be done to the US's industrial base ?

...And when the chinese trade reps pitch up to talk to the saudis and make it clear they don't care about saudi internal politics (ie no complaints about democracy) and chinese oil companies will get special deals ?
Posted by: kb on November 30, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Chinese trade reps:
So - lets get this straight; for every 100 barrel of oil, we send 1 "guest worker", right? And you want those chains gold-plated? No problem.

remind me again why we attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia???
Posted by: The Conservative Deflator

TCD, a picture says a thousand words: [link]

So now "Big Time" is a poodle in the House of Saud?

So now "Big Time" is a poodle in the House of Saud?
Posted by: BroD on November 30, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

Well, a FEMALE poodle. . .

Oh my... The Sauds are suddenly showing an interest in what happens in Iraq? I guess the mission will soon change once again.

I agree that a regional war was in noone's best interests, its too bad the US started one.

The USA did no such thing. To paraphrase former Israeli PM Begin, "Arabs kill Arabs and it's the americans fault". That is of course nonsense. The Sunni and Shite have been killing each other for over 1,000 years. They will continue to kill each other until one side wins.

It's not our responsibility. It's not the Jews responsibility. It's the Arabs responsibility.

You are quite right is suggesting the troops be removed ASAP. Protect the Kurds and let the rest have at it.

Of course, since that mostly means that Iran would be crushing the Saudi regime like a bug, that's not a particularly credible threat; its kind of like the Sheriff in Blazing Saddles.

Actually it's a very good threat. The Saudi's do have spare capacity and driving the price down would wreck the badly mis-managed Iranian economy. Iran has a weak and poorly trained military as they proved in their war with Iraq. They've been buying Russian arms but as has been proven for decades these arms are inferior to the American arms supplied to the Saudi military as well as American military training.

Iran might have 4x's as much manpower but all that means is 32x's as many of their soldiers would be killed were they to try to attack Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have long been keenly aware of the threat from Iran. They won't be surprised or unprepared.

cheaper oil might be good for the US, but it's even better for china.

No it isn't. The USA imports a lot more oil than China.

And with cheaper oil how much more damage will be done to the US's industrial base ?

Absolutely none. Cheaper oil will benefit the global economy and the US manufacturing base.

rdw:

So then (hi, Wooten -- how 'bout that hat trick. Two chambers *and* Rumsfeld, all within 48 hours. Nice blue ties next morning, too :), if the Sunni and Shia *weren't* killing each other en masse prior to the invasion (which they weren't) -- why then, did we invade?

To facilitate their bloodlust or what?

Bob

Hey, rdw's back! Let me celebrate his return with this keenly prescient prediction of his made right before the midterms:

The GOP is going to do much better in the Senate than expected and will have a very strong turnout across the board.
We may keep 53 or 54 Senate seats and lose less than a dozen house seats. If Rove and Mehlman get the base out, and that seems likely, the networks will be in mourning on Wednesday. Nancy and Harry will certainly lose their positions and Charlie Rangel among others will resign.
It's not impossible Chaffee will keep his seat and that 53 or 54 will be 54 or 55.
Posted by: rdw on November 5, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Ask Israeli groud troops just how shoddy was Hezbollah's equippage from Russia (via Iran). Oh, and about their Iranian Revolutionary Guard training, too.

The Iranian military has come a long way since the Iran/Iraq war ... and the Iranian economy is not anywhere near as shoddy as you seem to think. They manufacture their own automobiles.

Saudi security forces are good at cracking heads, and they have good intelligence on jihadi groups. And the Saudi air force has just oodles of F-16s, which princes enjoy zipping across the desert. But the Saudi military is an untested thing ...

Most of the Saudi citizenry, as Chris Dicely noted, when push comes to shove aren't terribly loyal to the regime.

Bob

Stefan:

Positively *delicious* gloat. I remember that post of his, too :)

Bob

I think the Iranian military might be a bit stronger than they were 20 years ago when they fought the Iraqis to a draw. I wouldn't dismiss them as weak and ineffectual out-of-hand.

The moral implications of full-fledged, multinational war in the Mideast are absolutely monstrous to contemplate

You are hyper-ventilating. Iran and Iraq fought a full scale war for 10 years recently and it meant nothing outside Iran and Iraq. These are incompetent, backwards governments and societies. Let me know the next time there's a scientific achievement, invention or innovation of any kind out of a Middle Eastern nation not named Israel.

Aside from a blip in oil markets these economies mean almost nothing on the global stage. It would not be the worst thing if the Sunni and Shite ended their dispute now. The world would be much better off with new govts in Iran and Syria which is by far the most likely result along with the destruction of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

rdw:

Thank you, Winston Churchill (as filtered through Rudy Guiliani, as filtered through Rush Limbaugh, as filtered through ... you get the picture :)

You are truly one sick fucking nihilist, aint'cha.

Bob

rdw:

Of course, that would assume that you know what the word "nihilist" means ...

Bob

rdw:

Yeah, Wooten -- like overthrowing Saddam brought "democracy" to the region.

Your theory has been tested.

It has failed.

Nobody buys into that "blow 'em up -- they'll all get peaceful!" crapola anymore. Even the fucking *neocons* have repudiated it.

Dick Cheney is about the last man on the planet anymore for that grandiosely evil shit.

Bob

"... it could spark a regional war. So be it."

Wow, the guy actually wrote that in the Washington Post. So be it. At least he didn't say "Maktub!"

"Actually it's a very good threat. The Saudi's do have spare capacity and driving the price down would wreck the badly mis-managed Iranian economy."

Um... Dear heart, have you actually looked at these two countries at all? If I recall correctly, Iran has by far the larger economy with less of a dependence on oil revenues. Iran's economy also has a higher growth rate, a lower inflation rate, a higher investment rate, and a significantly lower debt. Moreover, since Saudi Arabia produces about two and a half times as much oil as does Iran, a drastic reduction in oil prices affects their economy far more than it does Iran's.

Out of curiosity, dear, do you ever get tired of being exposed as an ignorant fool?

Ask Israeli groud troops just how shoddy was Hezbollah's equippage from Russia (via Iran). Oh, and about their Iranian Revolutionary Guard training, too.

The Israeli's also fight the UN and EU politically at the same time. They do not shoot at innocents and take car to minimize civilian losses. They are greatly restricted in their targeting The Sauds will be under no such limitations. This would not be a guerrila war fought on Iranain advantages. This will be one brutal Islamic regime with no standards versus another.

The Iranian military has come a long way since the Iran/Iraq war ... and the Iranian economy is not anywhere near as shoddy as you seem to think. They manufacture their own automobiles.

The russians manufactured their own cars as well. The Iranian military is still middle eastern. It's backwards.

Saudi security forces are good at cracking heads, and they have good intelligence on jihadi groups. And the Saudi air force has just oodles of F-16s, which princes enjoy zipping across the desert. But the Saudi military is an untested thing ...

They're not fighting the jews or Americans. They'll crush the Iranains, equally untested. Your vaunted Iranian Republican Guard will hide behind kids when shooting at jews. They can try that against an Arab army. Of course the arab army will shot back immediately.

Most of the Saudi citizenry, as Chris Dicely noted, when push comes to shove aren't terribly loyal to the regime.

That might be. But they're still a lot less loyal to the Iranian regime. They won't be thinking too long or hard over that decision. Iran doesn't have the wherewithall for much of an invasion but were they to try it they would be slaughered. Just as they were in Iraq.

If there *is* a regional war, Iran will kick Saudi Arabia's ass back into the middle of the desert. They have far more regime legitimacy even with the mullahs than the Saudis do with a huge (and hugely corrupt, decadent and ineffectual) royal family and foreigners running the whole goddamn country.

Bob

PaulB posted a slew of rdw's predictions - The list was endless - Even the Pennsylvania House changed hands to the Democratic Party -

So, the Doofus of Drexel Hill went zero for September, October and early November in endless predictions, but we are supposed to "bow" to his exceptional political and economic "wisdom" now. When freakin' pigs fly.

rdw:

PaulB's right -- you're a fucking idiot. Iran wasn't "slaughtered." Iran fought a much better-equipped and more industrialized Iraq to a standstill after 10 bloody years.

Bob

"Aside from a blip in oil markets these economies mean almost nothing on the global stage"

The mind boggles at the sheer cluelessness of this comment. "Aside from a blip in oil markets"??? Wow....

Population of Saudi Arabia: 27 million.

Population of Iran: 68 million.

PaulB:

He's thinking about the Iran/Iraq war, which in truth didn't cause a huge ripple in the international community or even in the region.

What he's not banking on is a full-scale war between Shia and Sunni for dominance in the region, which will drag in every surrounding nation because of the religious overtones ...

Bob

rcmk1,

Bob, an aside to the Irani-Iraqi War - I was in Vegas during that war - There was a young airhead on local TV who was reading the news - She said, "Today in Iraq, there was a massive shelling - Twenty people were killed, and "A Whole Bunch More" were injured.

She probably had attended The Valley Girl's School of Broadcasting, for sure, for sure.

"we are supposed to "bow" to his exceptional political and economic "wisdom" now"

LOL... He's even better on economics than he is on politics. I still remember that discussion with howard where rdw swore that France didn't have an economic business cycle:

"you are way, way over your head. France is in horrible economic shape. It has nothing to do with the business cycle. They DON'T HAVE A BUSINESS CYCLE."

Note the all caps and the insistence that howard (!) was way over his head. Dear little rdw also didn't know that there is more than one way to measure unemployment, both here in the U.S. and abroad, and that you cannot compare unemployment numbers between countries without correcting for the different ways they measure this. And this from a guy who insisted on another thread that he was "an amateur economist." LOL....

This same "amateur economist" also wrote the following:

The tax cuts of 6/30/03 are the significant cuts becasue they were larger and designed for the supply side effects. They worked extremely well. Ronald Reagan and created an entirely new school of economics. Lord Keynes has become a historical figure and the language has changed."

I'll just let that post stand without further comment, well, other than to post this followup note from dear little rdw:

"I'm a finance guy. I work on the investment side. Economics comes in very handy toward enhancing one's ability to invest. Plus I like economics."

The mind boggles....

If I recall correctly, Iran has by far the larger economy with less of a dependence on oil revenues.

Iran has a larger economy poorly distributed among many more people. Per Capita income for the Sauds is almost double the Iranians while inflation of 0.4% is a fraction of Iran's 13%. By almost every economic measure the Sauds are better off and have substantially higher budget surpluses as well as Cash and Investments on hand.

The Sauds could easily withstand a price drop while the Iranians would start into recession almost immediately.

More predictions:

The war is not screwed up. The military is doing a fantastic job and succeeding against incredible odds. History is going to give these professionals the highest marks of any military in history. Just the act of creating a 300,000 professional army from scratch in Iraq is a stunning achievement. Doing it under such dangerous conditions makes it all the more incredible.

Posted by: rdw on May 29, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

Hey ... rdw knows what he knows, and he knows it good -- cuz, you know, he knows it.

Now let's all stop piling on ... cuz there hasn't been a real good trool-thwacking here since before the election and we shouldn't scare him away prematurely or anything ....

Think of it like, you know, hunkering down quietly in a duck blind :)

Bob

Per Capita income for the Sauds is almost double the Iranians

You idiot--Saudi "per capita income" is the most skewed statistic there is. First and foremost, the wealth of the Saudi Royal Family skews the results significantly. Second of all, the number of actual Saudi citizens that are counted is much smaller than the number of people who actually live there; they import their labor.

Third--why is it useful to compare Iran to Saudi Arabia? Oh, that's right. You're batshit crazy and everything intersects with the Kyoto Treaty, the population decline of old Europe, and the buzzing behind your left ear which may or may not be an implant that allows you to communicate with the Mother Ship high in orbit.

My bad...

I posted this on that other thread where rdw babbled on about St. Reagan:

I wonder if we should tell rdw just how much St. Reagan had to raise taxes after his "entirely new school of economics" gave way to reality? And just how many tax hikes it took from three different presidents to undo the damage caused by St. Reagan's "entirely new school of economics?" Or which president it was that actually managed to balance the budget, a feat that will never be managed by St. Bush?

Nah....

If there *is* a regional war, Iran will kick Saudi Arabia's ass back into the middle of the desert.

No chance. It'll be like playing video games for the Saudi Air force. Iran's numerical troop advantage is useless. Iran's guerilla tactics are useless. They just mean more targets to shoot at. Since the Sauds have by far the superior targeting and unlimited smart bombs it just means many, many more Iranians will die.

rdw:

You're out of your fucking mind. Saudi Arabia has exactly two sources of income: Oil, and tourist revenue from the jihad (which accomodates hundreds of thousands of Muslims every year, so it's not like, say, Florida's tourist economy).

Everything that they have they import. Wealth distribution is grotesquely uneven -- one of the main reasons the royals are so detested. Adding in the Saudi royal family's wealth into the population at large and then *averaging it* is one of your neat little dishonest accountant's tricks.

Bob

jihad = haj -- yearly pilgrimage to Mecca, one of the Five Pillars of Islam, that every able-bodied Muslim has to make once in their lives.

Third--why is it useful to compare Iran to Saudi Arabia?

You need to read the paper. It's the Sauds (Sunni) most upset about Iran developing nuclear weapons. It's the Sauds most upset about the Iranians funding and supplying the Shite in Iraq to kill the Sunni in Iraq. It's the Sauds who said they will start 'supporting' the Sunni in Iran. (whatever that means?). It's the Sauds who are the most fanatical of the Sunni and the Iranians who are the most fanatical of the Shite. They've only been fighting each other for 1,000 years.

What were you thinking the reason was?

You need to read the paper.

So I can be as smart as you?

Oh, goody!

rdw:

Do you really think that air power can win a war like this? We have overwhelming air superiority in Iraq.

It don't mean squat in a civil conflict where the goal is not conquest but rather supporting your partisans in an often hand-to-hand struggle. Not a whole lot of infrastructure in Iraq left to bomb, anyway ...

What are the Saudis gonna do -- take out the electricity, sewage and water infrastructure?

ROTFL !

Bob

Here is one prediction that dear little rdw actually got right: "Our geo-political position will be radically different in 2009 than it was in 2001."

Alas, though, that this was in reference to St. Bush and it followed this remark: "While the fools are debating pre-war intelligence GWB is changing the world," and preceded this one: "By 2009 France for all practical purposes will no longer exist as a separate entity"

The poor guy has been posting here for months and in all that time has never provided a single verifiable fact and hasn't been right about, well, anything. And despite all of this, he's absolutely firmly convinced that he's right about, well, everything and that none of his previous errors were actually errors. They simply don't exist to the poor chap. Out of sight, out of mind; don't ask, don't tell; and all that.

I love the guy but I will never make the mistake of taking him seriously or trying to engage him in a real debate. He is wholly incapable of learning anything.

No chance. It'll be like playing video games for the Saudi Air force. Iran's numerical troop advantage is useless. Iran's guerilla tactics are useless. They just mean more targets to shoot at. Since the Sauds have by far the superior targeting and unlimited smart bombs it just means many, many more Iranians will die.

Just like in Iraq, where the Iraqis' guerilla tactics are useless since we Americans have superior aerial targeting and unlimited smart bombs. That's why we're winning in Iraq, yeah, that's it....

You know what'd be kind of fun? A bit of a Google hunt for some of rdw's crazier postings and predictions. It'd be like old times....

rdw:

Uhhh, hel-LOOO ... Knock knock! Is there anybody there?

The "most fanatic of the Sunni" are the JIHADIS, whom, you'll remember, were busy BLOWING UP Saudi Arabia not too long ago. Osama's No. 3 target (after the Great and Little Satans) is the SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY. So you really have to question how much of a dog they have in a religious-driven fight here -- what kind of regime-threatening demons that could unleash.

Secondly, SA would have to *invade* Iran -- not just bomb it. Iranians can survive bombing, just as the Iraqis did. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has some extremely vulnerable oil infrastructure -- not to mention royal palaces. It's far more ideally bombable than is Iran, which isn't built on a desert.

Bob

That lovely trip down memory lane - Ah, the heady days of the 80s when one no longer used the term tax hikes, but rather "user fees".

rdw: "It's the Sauds (Sunni) most upset about Iran developing nuclear weapons."

But it aren't you most able to communicate good and be able to understood, like.

Poor rdw, ever immune to reality, writes: "By almost every economic measure the Sauds are better off"

LOL.... No, dear, they aren't, as you can easily see from the economic stats I already provided on this very thread.

"and have substantially higher budget surpluses as well as Cash and Investments on hand."

LOL.... Dear heart, you did see that lovely little stat I provided above about Saudi Arabia's debt compared to Iran's, right? Compared as a percentage of GDP, Saudi is in much worse shape than Iran.

"The Sauds could easily withstand a price drop"

No, dear, they couldn't, which is why much of this is a bluff.

"while the Iranians would start into recession almost immediately."

Dear heart, you did see that little fact about how much higher Saudi Arabia's production is, right? Not to mention how much more of a significant chunk of the GDP oil revenues are in Saudi Arabia as compared to Iran. In short, and as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

"It's far more ideally bombable than is Iran, which isn't built on a desert."

Not to mention more vulnerable to sabotage, the very guerrilla tactics that rdw decries.

A war wouldn't be a slam dunk for either of them, in my opinion, but at least Iran has been tested. Saudi Arabia has not. In any case, if this does degenerate into a broader conflagration, this will almost certainly be far more than a "blip" on the world's radar.

Wealth distribution is grotesquely uneven -- one of the main reasons the royals are so detested. Adding in the Saudi royal family's wealth into the population at large and then *averaging it* is one of your neat little dishonest accountant's tricks

Not a trick. It's shows the relative sizes of the two economies better. 40% of the Iranian population lives under the poverty level. Thinking after the Mad Mullahs fund all of their jihads there's a lot left for 70M people?

Again, to restate the obvious, it doesn't matter if they love their princes. They like the Mad mullahs a lot less. The last thing the Sauds can allow is for Iran to get the bomb and pretend to be King of the hill. That's a disaster for th entire Kingdom, prince and poorman.

BTW: I am not predicting a full scale war. I am saying if there was one the Iranians would suffer horrendous losses and would lose.

I suspect we're going to have a proxy war in Iraq between the Shite and Sunni with each side well funded and armed by their client states. Kurdistan will be fine. They'll become the new Israel. The 2nd flourishing Democracy in the region. At some point the two sides will tire and we'll have a Sunni-Iraq and a Shite Iraq with many fewer people than are there now.

The Saud's, Eqyptians and Turks at a minimum will arm (nuclear) to protect themselves from Iran. Many people seem to think the nuts in Iran intend to nuke Israel. I think they know Israel would wipe Iran and all of Islams sacred sites off the map 1st. I think we're headed to a return of MAD. Iran failing to win any leverage against Israel or within the Middle East for toy with Europe.

They want to spread their religion and gain power. They have no chance in the America's or nearby Asia. Russia, China or India would squash them like a bug. Islam was in Europe and they're back. They'll get control.

Wooten just thinks that because the Saudis possess a bunch of American-made weaponry, that this is going to make all the difference ...

It's what you call ... blind faith.

Technology doesn't trump a motivated foe. Much of the Saudi ground troops aren't going to be terribly motivated compared to Iranian soldiers -- because after all, this presumes a number of attacks by SA on Iran.

Many of the Saudi ground troops will doubtless be Pakistani mercenaries ...

Bob

Stefan wrote: "A bit of a Google hunt for some of rdw's crazier postings and predictions. It'd be like old times...."

It's pretty amazing, actually, to read some of those earlier threads, including a couple where I was having a lot of fun with him. Whether it's St. Reagan, economics, politics, evil lefties, evil academics and university professors (who were "wrong about everything!"), St. Bush, Iraq, tax cuts, unemployment, history -- the list goes on and on.

And in all of those posts, he has never bothered to back up any of his opinions with anything even remotely resembling real data, facts, analysis, or logic. He won't even do so much as a 30-second Google search to verify anything he has written or debunk anything that he's arguing against. It's enough for him that he "knows" it. A truly interesting case of remarkable self-delusion.

A bit of a Google hunt for some of rdw's crazier postings and predictions. It'd be like old times....

There are a few that I really enjoyed taking him apart on.

The one that had me laughing my ass off was how he bragged about how his son-in-law was able to rip off the government by not paying the right taxes or the right union dues for his construction business and how his daughter was able to get her nursing degree or whatever from a school that the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania increased the funding for (thereby creating the nursing program she was able to take advantage of). He was SO PROUD of the fact that his children were screwing the government! You could hear the fatherly pride and the absolute contempt for polite society.

Then he started ranting and raving about the ownership society and the creation of 401Ks, which happened during Jimmy Carter's presidency and which the Reagan Administration sought unsuccessfully to kill by reforming the tax code. (long story short--the Democrats stopped the Reagan administration from eliminating the 401K.)

Absolutely hilarious shit. The only person who's ever had me laughing so hard I fell out of my chair was rdw and his assertion that...hell, pick one of his assertions!

Notice how every time he makes one of his big posts...the knives come out and we all have fun.

They want to spread their religion and gain power. They have no chance in the America's or nearby Asia. Russia, China or India would squash them like a bug. Islam was in Europe and they're back. They'll get control.

Who wants it? Who wants it?

We should invite the lurkers to start taking rdw to the woodshed...

Technology doesn't trump a motivated foe. Much of the Saudi ground troops aren't going to be terribly motivated compared to Iranian soldiers -- because after all, this presumes a number of attacks by SA on Iran

I don't expect any Saudi troops in Iran. They are not aggressors. If there is a war it'll be started by Iran. American technology is vastly superior to Russian technology as has been proven every year since the 1940's and the gap is wider. The only way the Russians and Chinese can advance is to steal. These are still basically socialist economies almost incapable of innovation.

The Saud's have a large, well paid, trained and motivated Air Force far more competent than the Iranian and Iraqi air forces combined at their peaks. They have a small army that is also well trained and more than sufficient for defensive operations.

The only possible edge the Iranians bring to any battle is they have no ethics. They use terrorism. That won't be an edge against a middle eastern enemy and the Saudi's are just as motivated by religious hatred as the Iranians.

The only way the Russians and Chinese can advance is to steal. These are still basically socialist economies almost incapable of innovation.

Oh...my...God.

I just fell out of my doggone chair again.

Hmmm, what can you lurkers do with this little nugget?

rdw:

Oh lordy what you don't understand about history ... First and foremost, EVERYBODY in the region despises the Saudi Royal Family (and the families that run the other Gulf states as well) in a way that even the radical Sunnis don't despise the mullahs of Iran -- because the mullahs of Iran are just cranky old ascetic men, not decadent wastrels whose profligate lifestyles make a mockery of Islam.

Second of all, Persia has a proud three-milliennium history. Saudi Arabia resulted from a tribal conquest in the desert at the end of the 18th century. Saudi Arabia is held together by brute force in a way that isn't nearly as true as the oppression in Iran. Iranian women are much more free, for instance, than in SA. And within every Iranian reformer in the universities who despises the mullahs beats the heart of an Iranian patriot. I don't think you can say the same thing for the average citizen of Saudi Arabia -- whose flavor of Wahabi Sharia they have to submit to is much more oppressive.

Thirdly, PaulB is correct. A proxy war fought in Iraq between Iran and Saudi Arabia would be no cakewalk. Instead of American forces -- which, give us credit, are at least *trying* to be honest brokers between the Sunni and Shia and have no real dog in the fight -- the Saudis will press the Sunni case much more vigorously, and no doubt will provoke Iran's entry into the war.

The problem with this is that it will just make what's currently going on in Iraq that much more hellish and protracted. Instead of just finding a cute little way that we can use to wash our hands of the conflict, unleashing these two dogs on each other will consign the Iraqis to an unimaginable hell -- and don't think Kurdistan would escape unscathed if that happens, either. Don't expect Turkey and Iran on their borders to be so restrained.

Bob

he has never bothered to back up any of his opinions with anything even remotely resembling real data, facts, analysis, or logic.

I always use facts my friend. Here's one of my favorites. When Ronnie came into office the top tax rates under Carter and the Democrats were 70%. When Ronnie left office the top rates were 28%.

That's a fact jack! That's called tax cutting. Clinton and these other twits move rates 3% and think they moved the world. Reagan cut tax rates by 42%.

I know it bothers you Reagan is so highly regarded but you are just going to have to get over yourself and accept it. He was a great President. In Jimmy's own words we suffered a national maliase under his term. Just a few years later it was Morning in America. That's another fact. You can look it up. Jimmy said so.

"I don't expect any Saudi troops in Iran. They are not aggressors. If there is a war it'll be started by Iran."

Gotta love this one, too, since it ignores all of the information presented in Kevin's original post on this very thread! The poor guy is just losing it now....

The Saud's have a large, well paid, trained and motivated Air Force far more competent than the Iranian and Iraqi air forces combined at their peaks. They have a small army that is also well trained and more than sufficient for defensive operations.

You know, you must be a huge fan of trashhauler, who asserted on another thread that once the Iraqi Army has artillery, armor, a logistics corps and a military air force, it will be able to stave off a coup from outside forces.

To this, I say "ha!"

It's called Fourth Generation Warfare. It doesn't really care if you have tanks, planes, heavy equipment transports, attack helicopters or the ability to refuel a squadron in the air at night over the ocean. It doesn't care if you have the ability to fire several hundred artillery shells a minute or equip every soldier with three pairs of pants and give them a world-class shower facility in the middle of the desert.

You won't go broke underestimating rdw's ability to make the most insane assertions ever.

Guaranteed, baby.

"I always use facts my friend."

LOL... Dear heart, I'm not your friend. And, alas for you, I'm afraid that this statement is as accurate as most of your statements -- i.e., not at all.

"Here's one of my favorites. When Ronnie came into office the top tax rates under Carter and the Democrats were 70%. When Ronnie left office the top rates were 28%."

Yes, dear, that's a fact. The trouble is, dear, that this little fact is entirely and completely meaningless. And that this little fact doesn't support any of those endless fantasies you weave about St. Reagan.

"That's a fact jack! That's called tax cutting."

Yes, dear, now would you care to tackle the issue of the tax hikes that St. Ronnie passed every subsequent year he was in office? Or the tax hikes that Bush the elder was forced to pass because of the damage caused by St. Ronnie's tax cuts? Or the tax hikes that Clinton was forced to pass because of the damage caused by St. Ronnie's tax cuts? And only after all three presidents raised taxes did the budget come back into balance. Now what was that you were saying about "facts," dear?

"Clinton and these other twits move rates 3% and think they moved the world. Reagan cut tax rates by 42%."

ROFL.... Omigod.... I wonder if dear little rdw actually believes these two numbers? Or thinks that they are "facts?" The mind boggles....

As to the rest of his usual worship of St. Reagan, I'm not going to bother. I've had my fun with him on that topic. Suffice to say that he knows as little about St. Reagan as he does about anything else.

However, all this being said ... the thought occurs to me that Saudi combat troops might have a role to play securing Anbar -- if things deteriorate so badly that a three-state solution becomes inevitable. If there were somehow a way to control this, I can see an argument for Saudi troops to protect Sunnis against rogue Shi'ite militias ....

Dunno if anyone else has had the same idea, though.

Bob

"Clinton and these other twits move rates 3% and think they moved the world. Reagan cut tax rates by 42%."

Let's go to an article from...drum roll...The Washington Monthly!

[thanks Joshua Green]

"Mondale Would Have Been Proud"

It's conservative lore that Reagan the icon cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush the renegade raised them. As Stockman recalls, "No one was authorized to talk about tax increases on Ronald Reagan's watch, no matter what kind of tax, no matter how justified it was." Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly--but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.)

Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives--and probably cost Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection--Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.

This record flummoxes the best efforts of today's Reagan hagiographers to explain away. Peter Wallison, for instance, after proclaiming that Reagan "stayed the course against changes in his economic plan," later dismisses the president's tax increases as "a modest rollback" that "seems to have been the result" of his accepting a Democratic promise to cut spending by twice that amount. (Whatever happened to "Trust, but verify"?)

Reagan continued these "modest rollbacks" in his second term. The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. In addition to broadening the tax base, the plan increased standard deductions and personal exemptions to the point that no family with an income below the poverty line would have to pay federal income tax. Even at the time, conservatives within Reagan's administration were aghast. According to Wall Street Journal reporters Jeffrey Birnbaum and Alan Murray, whose book Showdown at Gucci Gulch chronicles the 1986 measure, "the conservative president's support for an effort once considered the bastion of liberals carried tremendous symbolic significance." When Reagan's conservative acting chief economic adviser, William Niskanen, was apprised of the plan he replied, "Walter Mondale would have been proud."

So would Russell Long. In 1975, the Democratic senator from Louisiana had passed into law the earned income tax credit (EITC), essentially a wage subsidy for the working poor. Long's measure was tiny to begin with and had dwindled to insignificance by the time Reagan agreed to expand it in 1986 as part of the tax reform act. Despite years of opposing social insurance programs, Reagan's support of the EITC gave rise to what has become one of the most effective antipoverty measures the federal government has ever devised--by the late 1990s, the EITC was lifting 4.3 million people out of poverty every year. Reagan's decision to expand it was "the most important anti-poverty measure enacted over the past decade," wrote The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt. The exemption of millions of low-wage earners from income taxes through the EITC and other reforms in 1986 added a significant measure of progressivity to the tax code. As evidence of its popularity with liberals, Clinton dramatically expanded the EITC in 1993.

At the time, many Republicans touted Reagan's support as proof that he wasn't the coldhearted tyrant liberals made him out to be. Other conservatives, like Niskanen, however, saw it as troubling evidence of their leader's weakness. Today, there is a growing movement within the Bush administration to roll back these changes by making the working poor pay their "fair share" of taxes.

These evident lapses in conservative ideology are a fact that some liberals have a much less difficult time coming to terms with than conservatives. "There were two Reagans," says Robert J. McIntyre, director of the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice, who was instrumental in the 1986 act, "the good one and the bad one. Liberals and conservatives wouldn't agree on which is which, but they would have to agree that Reagan completely flipped after 1981. If you like one, you can't like the other."

And don't forget--Reagan tried to kill the 401K loophole. What would have happened if he had succeeded?

Oh, that's right! Higher taxes and no "ownership society!"

Priceless!

unleashing these two dogs on each other will consign the Iraqis to an unimaginable hell -- and don't think Kurdistan would escape unscathed if that happens, either

No it won't. Wars in the middle east are common and they're far from over. These are medievil cultures with scores to settle. If there is a war to come in Iraq between Sunni and Shite it will be about setting borders and won't take long or be as bloody as the Iran-Iraq war. As soon as they have defined borders the killing will end and they'll move on.

The Kurds are safe. Iran cannot infiltrate Kurdistan easily and has little motivation. They cannot invade or we'd wipe out the invasion force.

Turkey is a different matter but they have even less motivation. Kurdistan is a rapidly growing country hoping to be a profitable trading partner for the Turks while absorbing many Kurdish refugees from Turkey lowering the pressure from that minority group. The Kurds are also trying to keep the PPPK out of Kurdistan and minimize attacks.

In addition, both countries would risk repeating the Soviet experience in Afghanistan if they were to invade Kurdistan. The Kurds are now fairly prosperous with a proud, capable and growing military. Their population has grown by more than 50% and continues to expand. With access to American and Israeli weapons, technology and intelligence it would be incredibly risky for either Turkey or Iran to attempt an invasion.

It's conservative lore that Reagan the icon cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush the renegade raised them.

It's conservative fact that Reagan cut tax RATES and GHWB and Clinton raised TAX RATES.

We know taxes paid went up under Reagan. That was the point. That's supply-side. Cut taxes grow the economy increase income so much we pay more in taxes but with lower tax rates we keep even more in income.

It's really not hard. It's tax rates.

It's really not hard. It's tax rates.

Oh, absolutely. In the face of overwhelming empirical data and evidence to the contrary, I'm quite certain that you believe that.

How loud is that buzzing sound?

"If there is a war to come in Iraq between Sunni and Shite it will be about setting borders and won't take long or be as bloody as the Iran-Iraq war."

Don't you just love these silly blanket assertions that are wholly unsupported by anything resembling logic, reason, or facts? Hmm... let's see... a limited conflict between two countries will be longer and bloodier than an all-out conflagration between the Sunnis and Shi'ites involving much of the Middle East??? Again, the mind boggles....

The one thing I actually agree with him on is that the Kurds are probably in better shape than either the Iraqi Sunnis or Shi'ites. That is, unless they start feeling uppity and decide to declare themselves to be an independent state, at which point, Turkey gets involved. Boy, won't that be fun? Yeah, none of this will be long or bloody....

rdw, dear, just in case you hadn't been paying attention to the news, Turkey does, in fact, have motivation to not support an independent Kurdistan on their doorstep. Nor will such an independent country "lower the pressure from that minority group." To the contrary, the pressure will almost certainly increase, and enormously at that. As usual, your assertions are, frankly, silly and ignorant.

They use terrorism. That won't be an edge against a middle eastern enemy

As have been proven in Iraq, where terrrorism has failed to gain an edge against the Iraqi government and (in)security forces....

rdw:

Argh ... where do I begin?

First, doesn't your whole "they're medieval cultures" schtick kind of render the invasion of Iraq kind of, well -- grotesquely hypocritical? If you're really about "they're just little brown people who democracy is too good for" -- then Lucy, you've got some s'plainin' to do.

Secondly, you don't understand much about Kurdistan. Every day there are border skirmishes by the PPK into Turky mostly but also Iran and Syria, most of which the US State Dept. would classify as terrorist actions. The "Kurds" are not trying to "get rid of" the PPK -- for the most part they're supported by the people. "Kurdistan" is an as-yet unfulfilled dream for most Kurds -- because of the Kurdish border regions in Turky, Iran and Syria, and every Kurd has an irredentist dream in their hearts of a Greater Kurdistan which will encompass those areas and liberate those Kurds from centuries of historic oppression. Had Iraq settled down into a stable state, you could have contained this problem and ultimately curbed the Iraqi Kurds' territorial ambitions. With a widening war and an already-growing refugee crisis of Sunni Arabs migrating into Kurish cities (most Kurds are Sunni) to escape Shi'ite death squads, the border regions situation may not remain stable. The Kurds may need some Liebensraum.

Bob

Dunno if anyone else has had the same idea, though.

This was viewed are inevitable by many the day Iraq was created. The criticism has always been it was foolish to just draw lines on a map and combine 3 separate and distinct cultures within one country. Many serious historians and political scientists have suggested Iraq should never have happened and instead borders have been drawn based on ethnic divisions.

One of the current absurd arguments that Saddam should still be in power is based on an assumption Iraq can only exist under a murderous tyrant ready to butcher for stability.

Not to pur words in Dicelys mouth but his suggestion of immediate withdrawal is based on an understanding peace between the Sunni and Shite is hopeless until much more blood is shed. Obviously he doesn't think they're capable of sharing a Democracy.

We are under 7 inches of snow and my power just came back on, and it might go off again - but Wooten - you are delusional as usual.

It isn't Iran we need to worry about attacking Kurds. It is our NATO ally Turkey, and the Turkish military, and the Iranian for that fact, are not the pushovers you seem to think they would automatically be.

"It's conservative fact that Reagan cut tax RATES and GHWB and Clinton raised TAX RATES."

It's also a fact that Reagan raised taxes ... repeatedly. You still cannot bring yourself to acknowledge this, can you? Nor can you bring yourself to acknowledge that Reagan, Bush, and Clinton raised taxes because they had to to bring the budget back into balance.

"We know taxes paid went up under Reagan. That was the point. That's supply-side."

ROFLMAO.... Gee, think he actually believes this bullshit? Free clue, rdw, dear: you are once again, and as usual, entirely incorrect.

"Cut taxes grow the economy increase income so much we pay more in taxes but with lower tax rates we keep even more in income."

Don't you just love the drivel from this "amateur economist?" He not only doesn't know anything; he's so ignorant he doesn't even know how much he doesn't know! That's why it's a complete waste of time to do anything other than have fun with him. You simply cannot get through to him.

What I find hilarious is that he cannot bring himself to even acknowledge, much less address, facts that contradict his world view. When you point out that he is unmistakably and verifiably incorrect, he simply tunes you out. Sometimes, that talking point disappears from his store. More often, it resurfaces again in another thread (see, for example, his talking point about how the Bush economic growth is the best in decades).

"It's really not hard. It's tax rates."

Dear heart, if it is "not hard," why do you keep getting it wrong?

Stefan wrote: "As have been proven in Iraq, where terrrorism has failed to gain an edge against the Iraqi government and (in)security forces...."

LOL.... Don't you just love this guy? So completely and totally clueless?

I also loved this Freudian slip of rdw's on another thread, regarding the 2008 presidential election: "I don't think the GOP can nominate anyone and win."

Gee, rdw, here's hoping that, for once, you're right.

Not to pur words in Dicelys mouth but his suggestion of immediate withdrawal is based on an understanding peace between the Sunni and Shite is hopeless until much more blood is shed. Obviously he doesn't think they're capable of sharing a Democracy.

Sounds like a sweet deal. How's it going so far?

The other fun thing about rdw is that when one of his delusions is ripped apart he gets nervous and retreats onto safer ground. Seeing, therefore, that his Saudis vs. Iranians argument is going nowhere, he does a little geographical skip and alights onto Kurdistan, where he proudly asserts that the Iranians won't invade. Of course, no one was talking about Kurdistan except him, but in his mind he's now won the argument. "Did you see how they all shut when I mentioned -- Kurdistan!" Um, yeah, because that wasn't the subject of discussion.

"Not to pur words in Dicelys mouth"

Sorry, dear heart, but that's precisely what you just did, since Dicely said no such thing.

In the face of overwhelming empirical data and evidence to the contrary

I have no idea what you are babbling about. I gave you a clear set of facts.

When Reagan came into office the top tax rates under Jimmy Carter and the Democrats were 70%

LOOK IT UP.

When Reagan left office the top tax rates were 28%.

Look it up.

The math is very simple. Reagan lowered the tax rates 42%. No President has come close

What part don't you understand?

PaulB:

Well, Global and I ripped him a new one on Kurdistan -- because in a wider war, his beloved Kurdistan's going to be creating some pretty serious problems for our NATO ally Turkey, among other neighboring countries ...

rdw:

No, Wooten -- don't you dare retreat into that "leftists never believed the Iraqis are capable of Democracy" garbage -- PLEASE ! You're advocating Saudi Arabia get in there oh-so-medievally on behalf of the Sunnis in a widening religious war which is the ANTITHESIS of BushCo's dream for Iraq.

You absolutely CANNOT have it both ways here.

We leftists, having a CULTURAL analysis to begin with, were correct at the start. It has nothing to do with any so-called genetic disposition to democracy.

It has everything to do with how cultures evolve towards modernity.

But, you know, you slept through all your history and sociology classes ...

Bob

Under Reagan they were not Tax Increases. They were revenue enhancements, remember?

The part of Reagan that boggled my mind was the quadrupling of the national debt. I think of the 80's as that decade we borrowed a trillion bucks from Japan and used it to throw a party. That wholoe fucking decade was pathological, all across the globe.

Um, yeah, because that wasn't the subject of discussion.

Exactly--this thread is about the Reagan legacy and tax rates from 1976-2000.

Right?

But even St. Ronny, doddering old sentimental Irishman that he was at heart, couldn't do David Stockman's bidding and slash entitlements ...

Just didn't have the guts for it, I guess. And thus the deficits bloomed ...

Bob

they're medieval cultures" schtick kind of render the invasion of Iraq kind of, well -- grotesquely hypocritical? If you're really about "they're just little brown people.

Another weal attempt ar race baiting. Liberals are soo shallow. Let me explain. Culture isn't color. Culture for our purposes here is what you believe and how you act. The medievil culture I've been referring too, which I thought was obvious in talking about Iran, was terrorism. You know, hiding in the civilian population, prefferable behind kids, and attacking innocents.

Like we had in Lebanon recently between Israel and Hezbollah and our troops have in Iraq.

While USA and Israeli troops will take great risks to themselves to protect innocents the Iranians have no such qualms. Were they to fight the Sauds they would learn both sides paying by the same rules.

BTW: I think the Iraqi's are perfectly capable of Democracy and already proved it. This is all due to Iranian and Syrian intervention. That's why the Saudi's are getting involved.

BTW: I think the Iraqi's are perfectly capable of Democracy and already proved it.

Ding ding ding ding ding!

We have a winner!

Once again, and this time, try to answer the question:

"How's that whole democracy in Iraq thing going so far?"

"I have no idea what you are babbling about. I gave you a clear set of facts."

ROFL... You know what's really sad? He honestly believes this!

"LOOK IT UP."

Dear heart, nobody is arguing with this particular fact.

"The math is very simple. Reagan lowered the tax rates 42%."

No, dear, he didn't, although it's not at all surprising that you think so. Alas that you are so completely and totally clueless on economic matters.

"What part don't you understand?"

ROFL.... Oh, the irony....

You are truly one sick fucking nihilist, aint'cha.

I think you might be right, Bob. I used to guess rdw leaned more neocon (particularly with the bold, self-satisfied assertions and need to tie Reagan and Israel into every discussion), but at least neocons have some use for consistency. Many even have principles, even if you disagree with the merit of those principles. rdw is way to erratic.

An example: Six months or so ago, rdw was arguing that the Sunnis would be slaughtered by the patient Shia, who realized that democracy only benefited them and were simply biding their time till the US left to begin a genocidal campaign against the Sunnis, while stabilizing their own government in the region. Now he seems to think there will be some kind of bloody standoff in which neither wins, and a good thing too. Hey, it's all going according to plan!

So what ended the Shia love? Was rdw wrong then or is he wrong now? Or was he more wrong then than he is now? It almost doesn't matter, since the guy spends absolutely zero time thinking through half-digested items pulled out of right-wing periodicals.

Has anyone ever sat next to someone at the bus stop who looks normal, and is even able to say a couple of sensible things they have no doubt learned from the television, but when they get going in a discussion/rant turns out to be absolutely nuts? Isn't it a little like that?

rmck1 wrote: "because in a wider war, his beloved Kurdistan's going to be creating some pretty serious problems for our NATO ally Turkey, among other neighboring countries ..."

Word... What's really hilarious is his idiotic assertion than an independent Kurdish state on the Turkish border is going to "lower the pressure from that minority group." I mean, jeez, is he really so ignorant that he does not know what the Kurds, both inside and outside Turkey, want? And just how much trouble and pressure will be caused by that new independent state? My god... how utterly clueless can you get?

It is our NATO ally Turkey, and the Turkish military, and the Iranian for that fact, are not the pushovers you seem to think they would automatically be.

Turkey is not interested in invading Kurdistan. They are much better off pressuring Kurdistan to stop the PPPK as much as possible.

Turkey well undertands the Kurdish militia is far more powerful than the PPPK especially on their home turf. Saddam was unable to defeat the Kurds in his own country. Turkey would suffer major casualties if they invaded and then continue to bleed if they stayed. It would be very hard on their military and their economy.

The equation gets worse every day as well as Kurdistan continues their dramatic growth and it's not like they're unaware of the threats they face. The militia continues to prepare.

Just didn't have the guts for it, I guess. And thus the deficits bloomed

Sure he had the guts. But he was a President not a King. He needed Congressional support and Tip O'Neill and that wasn't happening.

rdw:

Oh my fucking gods, can you get any MORE ass-backwards? If the Iraqis had their acts together democracy-wise, there'd be no NEED for either the Iranians or the Saudis to get involved! This is what's called EXPLOITING A POWER VACCUUM.

As far as culture goes -- again, you've got it ass-backwards. Hezbollah fought Israeli soldiers. That their rockets hit civilian targets is a function of that technology. Next war, doubtless their guidance systems will be more evolved. Hear of any suicide bombings in the Lebanese war? Uhhh -- nope.

Just like it's the Sunni takfiri Salafists who are doing all the suicide bombings -- not the Shi'ites. Though don't get me wrong; the Shi'ites have proven to be pretty adept at some pretty grotesque forms of torture -- but they aren't the ones who are blowing up civilians en masse with suicide bombs.

Bottom line here is that topping Saddam unleashed forces which are profoundly antithetical to the creation of democracy. The insecurity in the region from that conflagration has produced a region-wide Islamist fundamentalist BACKLASH.

And anybody who spent the tininest amount of time reading about Mideast culture after the first Gulf war could have fucking PREDICTED this.

Take your "purple fingers" and shove them up your rectum until your digestive lining rips and you die of a massive infection.

The politicians of the Iraqi so-called government for whom we serve as a rented Praetorian Guard can't leave the fucking Green Zone to press the flesh. There is no "Iraqi government" to speak of.

Bob

User fees, you stupid twit - Reagan used user fees to cover the deception of not "raising taxes"
Where the fuck were you in the 80s, you imbecile?
Falling off Verizon telephone poles on your head?

As for the Russians, well, they sure scared the shit out of a lot pilots with their Migs - no innovation they - Have you ever heard the term "reverse engineering"? - where they took our B-29s and reverse engineered them into Bears. The same used to be said about the Japenese, who also understood reverse engineering. And some of our wonderful "innovations" came from the Germans, British, and even the Italians. Everyone steals, begs and borrows from others. You really are the Dunce of Drexel Hill.

sweaty guy wrote: "but when they get going in a discussion/rant turns out to be absolutely nuts? Isn't it a little like that?"

What's really hilarious is when he contradicts himself or completely undercuts his own arguments in the very same thread, as he most recently did in the Wes Clark thread. He cannot even be bothered to keep his talking points straight, much less be worried about whether they even remotely make sense.

I loved it, for example, when he asserted that Bush was a genius because he was elected president and it takes a genius to win an election. Among many other things, I gently pointed out to him several counter-examples of various presidents and Senators who were not exactly the brightest of individuals. One example I used was Senator Patty Murray. rdw's response? "Oh, well, that's because Washington is a blue state." He never did figure out that he had just completely undercut his own argument.

80's as that decade we borrowed a trillion bucks from Japan and used it to throw a party.

It was a party wsn't it?

That wholoe fucking decade was pathological, all across the globe

Not quite sure what you mean but if pathological as in the USSR committing suicide you have a point. Ronnie didn't fire a shot yet defeated socialism. The USSR literally disappeared and even the Chinese realized socialism was a disaster.

That their rockets hit civilian targets is a function of that technology.

That they hid among kids while dressed in the same civilain clothes when they fired those rockets is classic middle eastern ethics. It's called terrorism. It has nothing to do with technology. It's their state of mind.

rdw, as clueless as ever, writes: "Sure he had the guts. But he was a President not a King. He needed Congressional support and Tip O'Neill and that wasn't happening."

ROFL.... Dear heart, did you ever take a good look at the budgets that Reagan submitted to Congress? Poor guy....

By the way, has it sunk in yet that St. Reagan repeatly raised taxes, including the largest tax hike in history? And that he didn't cut taxes by 42%?

rdw:

Uhhm, Wooten ... let me try to very patiently explain this to you:

Turky is not a threat to Iraqi Kurdistan. Neither are Iran or Syria.

It is Iraqi Kurdistan which is a threat to them. The PPK are a bunch of unregenerated Commies who a great many Kurds nonetheless support, because just like many Israelis (and the Kurds like to fancy themselves the Jews of the Mideast), they, too, harbor a dream of a greater region encompassing all their people in a united homeland.

That means that for every Kurd who holds a greater allegiance to Kurdistan than they do to Iraq (and that's nearly all of them save the political class) -- they WANT TO TAKE KURDISH-SETTLED TERRITORY FROM TURKEY, IRAN AND SYRIA for their dream of Greater Kurdistan.

That's called irredentism, Wooten. If unchecked, it leads to warfare.

Bob

"It was a party wsn't it?"

Yes, dear, it was, until the bill came due, which is why Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all had to repeatedly raise taxes to get the budget back in balance, something that will have to be repeated in the coming years once we get some adults back in charge again.

"Ronnie didn't fire a shot yet defeated socialism."

ROFL.... Like I said -- St. Reagan. You simply cannot argue with someone so clueless.

"The USSR literally disappeared and even the Chinese realized socialism was a disaster."

Q.E.D.

Psst... who wants to be the first one to tell him that the U.S. economy and government have quite a few socialist programs?

Turkey is not interested in invading Kurdistan. They are much better off pressuring Kurdistan to stop the PPPK as much as possible.

Hey rdw, what's the PPPK? Do you mean the PKK? Do you even know? What the hell are you talking about?

God, it's like arguing with Lassie sometimes.

"The Saud's, Eqyptians and Turks at a minimum will arm (nuclear) to protect themselves from Iran."

The combination of your assertion's (dumb) and English (primitive) are striking unusually! Can you keap the ranting when visiting time she is over?

Everyone steals, begs and borrows from others

Only when they're behind. We're never behind. Neither are the Japanese which when you think about it makes GWBs moves to revive the Japanese to full military power is pure genius. They will soon remove article 9 of their constitution allow full military investment, R&D. They are already full partners in Star Wars research and we'll gradually expand our partnership.

With our relative scientific, technical and manufacturing expertise this is a marriage made in heaven.

rdw, just as clueless as ever, writes: "Turkey is not interested in invading Kurdistan."

Dear heart, you still don't get it, do you? What, precisely, do you think "Kurdistan" is? Free clue: it doesn't stop at the border between Iraq and Turkey. At least, according to the Kurds in Iraq and in Turkey. Another free clue: Turkey isn't happy about having a chunk of its territory taken away and will fight to prevent it.

"They are much better off pressuring Kurdistan to stop the PPPK as much as possible."

Good luck with that, dear. We've seen just how well those kinds of pressures work, haven't we? And dear? It's the PKK, not the PPPK.

"Turkey well undertands the Kurdish militia is far more powerful than the PPPK especially on their home turf."

ROFL.... And this is relevant to anything under discussion ... how, exactly? Poor rdw....

"The equation gets worse every day as well as Kurdistan continues their dramatic growth"

Dear heart, just what makes you think that Kurdistan will "continue their 'dramatic' growth?"

rdw, just as fun as can be, writes: "Only when they're behind. We're never behind."

Yes, dear, we are on occasion, which is why we also participate in this global exchange of technology -- an exchange which you clearly do not understand.

"Neither are the Japanese which when you think about it makes GWBs moves to revive the Japanese to full military power is pure genius."

ROFLMAO.... Don't you just love this? Bush has "moved" to "revive the Japanese to full military power." And I really think he actually believes this, despite the fact that it is manifestly and obviously false.

"With our relative scientific, technical and manufacturing expertise this is a marriage made in heaven."

LOL... What can you say to a guy like this? He so obviously knows nothing at all, you really don't even have a frame of reference to start arguing! You'd have to take him back to grade school and teach him basic history, economics, politics, technology, and the like before you could even get to the point of showing him how utterly clueless he is!

sweaty guy:

PKK, thanks for the reminder; Wooten's typo bedazzled me :)

And nice takedown earlier, btw.

Bob

"unleashing the Japanese"

Banzai, ignorant twit, Banzai

Turky is not a threat to Iraqi Kurdistan. Neither are Iran or Syria.

I agree but your peer group certainly doesn't

It is Iraqi Kurdistan which is a threat to them.

This is just bizarre. 5M Kurds are going to attack 150M Turks and Persians? I don't think so. The Kurds are not commies. They are capitalists. if they were commies they would be poor. The influx of refugees would have created tent cities. They're in housing developments. Kurdistan looks like Utah.

The Kurds recognize this is their 1st and best chance for a homeland. Starting a war with anyone would end it. They need time to absorb more population and create more wealth. They have plenty and land and can easily absorb more people. The economy is doing very well. Kurdistan of 2012 will be far more powerful than the 2006 model.

They need their neighbors to conclude the cost of invading Kurdistan is much higher than the benefits. Not until then can they consider expansion and it won't be done via war.

sweaty guy wrote: "Do you even know what the hell are you talking about?"

LOL... Of course he doesn't. That's painfully obvious. That's why I'll say this over and over again: pity him for his ignorance, laugh at him for his utter cluelessness, mock him for his over-the-top hero worship and pompous pronouncements, but don't ever make the mistake of taking him seriously or thinking that you can get through to him. You cannot. A genuine debate with him is impossible and is a complete waste of your time.

So why am I here on this thread? Because I'm enjoying myself. Because I love it when someone so clueless exposes his ignorance for all and sundry to see. And because the thread is basically dead now, anyway, which gives me free reign to taunt the poor guy without fear of being scolded for derailing the conversation.

Example of rdw simply failing to actually think about the absurd talking points he comes up with: "The equation gets worse every day as well as Kurdistan continues their dramatic growth"

I wonder if it occurs to him to actually think about what will happen in "Kurdistan" as this "dramatic growth" continues and the resulting pressures causes the Kurds to get even more adamant about the greater Kurdistan that they have envisioned for decades?

PaulB:

Hey, we're all enjoying this. Thing with Wooten, at least he *does* try to stick to the "issues," at least as he understands them -- so it rarely devolves into a pure flamewar, which can be a little less fun, granted.

And Wooten's made of asbestos, so he doesn't take any of this stuff personally, either.

So by all means -- keep blasting away !

Bob

Dear little rdw, still bent on displaying his utter cluelessness, writes: "This is just bizarre."

No, dear, it's not; it's called reality. We recommend it highly; you should visit it sometime.

"5M Kurds are going to attack 150M Turks and Persians? I don't think so."

No, dear, they are not. That's called a strawman argument and a rather stupid one at that. The Kurds are quite likely to, instead, carve out territory from the other countries and dare them to attack. Those other countries, alas, are probably going to oblige them. At the very least, the tensions will be higher for years, if not decades.

"The Kurds are not commies. They are capitalists. if they were commies they would be poor. The influx of refugees would have created tent cities. They're in housing developments. Kurdistan looks like Utah."

ROFL.... What the hell can you say to this? He doesn't know a damn thing about Kurdistan; that's bloody obvious. So how the hell can you possibly educate someone so invincibly ignorant? The rest of the post was just the usual mindless drivel, unworthy of a response.

"Only when they're behind. We're never behind"

Yeah, I must concede - I forgot about Werner von Braun, Teller and Fermi being on the same swim team in Junior High down there in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. Oh, and Einstein out of Wilkes-Barre High. And all of those German rocket scientists we brought over from Penemunde - all were born and bred in the good ole US of fucking A.

Japanese to full military power." And I really think he actually believes this, despite the fact that it is manifestly and obviously false.

Paul, you need to read more. Japan recently relected a PM who campaigned on a pledge to remove chapter 9 of their constitution. He made it a referendum and won a decisive vitory. This was Kouzimi's hand picked successor.

You remember Kouzimi? He's the guy who pledged $1B to the Star Wards program and agreed to be full participants in the R&D work as well as implementation. The worlds most advanced radar array was just completed in Northern Japan. A couple of months ago another successful test of a ship based anti-missle defense array was completed off a Japanese Cruiser.

Seems the Japanese are none too happy about North Korea. Imagine that! They're none too happy with the Russians or Chinese either. The Japenese have been very strong allies the last two dozen years. As a mature, wealthy democracy it's time to end WWII restrictions and we're doing so.

I also like rdw's extrapolating dismissal of rmck1's proposal that a Kurdish state would declare war on Turkey or Iran. rmck of course never said anything of the sort, but such minutia can be lost when you are a border collie on strong drugs.

They're in housing developments. Kurdistan looks like Utah.

What's that girl? Timmy's fallen down the old well?

sweaty guy:

You asked earlier what happened to Wooten's Shia love? Well, it's kind of like this ...

The Saudis are *our pals*. They have this kissy-kissy long-term relationship with Bush and his oil buddies. And we've sold them just oodles of high-tech weaponry and trained their soldiers.

So Wooten, naturally, thinks that their shit don't stink. It's not even appearing on the ancient green-hued CRT which passes for his "radar screen" that the Sunnis in Iraq the Saudis would be supporting are the very "insurgents" we were fighting, why -- still *are* fighting as a matter of fact. Or that some of these very same insurgents are Sunni fanatics who would spit on any help from the Saudi Arabian royal family -- as much as they'd still take their money.

So for him, it's still at the ol' Saturday serial cowboys 'n' Indians phase. He hasn't quite grown to adolescence and did the film noir thing yet with doubled motives and shadowy figures and suchlike ...

Bob

3rd paul,

I'm keeping it to the post WWII ERA. In other words, in anyone's living memory.

I'm keeping it to the post WWII ERA. In other words, in anyone's living memory.

As opposed to, you know, the facts?

rdw, still clueless, writes: "Paul, you need to read more."

ROFL... Oh, the irony. Dear heart, I know more about Japan than you do (come to think of it, I know more about, well, everything than you do). What was manifestly and idiotically false was the stupid assertion that Bush had "moved" to "revive the Japanese to full military power." What is currently happening in Japan has virtually nothing at all to do with George W. Bush.

As to the rest of your silliness, I'll not bother. It's just the usual mindless drivel of a completely clueless individual. Among other things, you never have learned that there is more than one kind of missile defense and that not all of them are called "Star Wars."

Poor rdw: "I'm keeping it to the post WWII ERA. In other words, in anyone's living memory."

ROFL.... And yet, even with that, you're still wrong. Oh, well, better luck next time.

sweaty guy:

>> They're in housing developments. Kurdistan looks like Utah.

> What's that girl? Timmy's fallen down the old well?

*snickering helplessly*

Line of the fucking thread, bro :)

Bob

The DDH must be still playing with his Walther PPK, or the new improved version, the PPPK. Probably tried some Russian Roulette on late November 7.

Yes, the post WWII era - Probably still quite a few who remember those good old Banzai days from Guadacanal, Saipan, Guam, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Those memories are probably still very raw - But then your vast sea duty memories of stacking the Jolly Green Giant cans and swabbing the heads are
still pretty raw.

You know, you gotta give him credit tonight. Has he brought up Kyoto? Has he mentioned how smart George Bush is for tearing up the Kyoto treaty and how there is no such thing as Global Warming?

"Line of the fucking thread, bro"

I dunno ... I think that rdw has given him some pretty stiff competition. This is definitely going on the list of threads to mine when I next choose to mock rdw for the silliness of his pronouncements.

rdw wrote: "As a mature, wealthy democracy it's time to end WWII restrictions and we're doing so."

Interesting. So dear little rdw is Japanese?

just what makes you think that Kurdistan will "continue their 'dramatic' growth

Because they're capitalists and that's what capitalist do. They also have oil and gas, plenty of water, a tourist trade and a long history of trade and commerce.

Almost immediately after Saddam was chased out of his palace the cranes went up in Kurdistan building Airports, Universities, Houses, shopping malls etc. They have a strong well trained militia and secure borders. They are the closest thing to Israel in the region. Their ability to absorb population has been stunning.

PaulB:

It's just the comparison of rdw to Lassie that made me laugh, is all ...

Total non-sequitur -- but then again, it really *isn't* such a non-sequitur at all :)

I'm still snickering at it, truthfully ...

Bob

You know, you gotta give him credit tonight. Has he brought up Kyoto? Has he mentioned how smart George Bush is for tearing up the Kyoto treaty and how there is no such thing as Global Warming?

he hasn't mentioned Margaret Thatcher tonight either. I'm starting to wonder if this is the real rdw.

Hmmm, three car garage - Plenty of room to play with his toy Zeros and ME-109s - Code of the Samurai - Rising Suns on the walls - Little red, white and black flags as well - Practice diving by Stukas and Zeros on his GI-Joes.

Banzai, Wootten, Banzai

I'm enjoying watching rdw get gang raped.

rdw:

Okay ... lemme try (probably fruitlessly) *one more time* about Kurdistan.

It isn't that Kurdistan is increasingly prosperous. Or that it's safe, and relatively-speaking democratic (although there's a lot more unrest than you give it credit for -- there's much anger and resentment at the governing parties and a government-built monument to Kurdish victims of Saddam's gas attacks was trashed in a riot last year due to anger at government corruption). But all these things I will grant you. Maybe even certain streets resembling Utah :)

It is, in fact, all these things that are precisely causing unrest in the Kurdish regions of Iraqi Kurdistan's neighbors. They want some of the action, too. But since they've been historically oppressed mountain people (the border regions are mountainous and not nearly as well-developed as the interior) in Iran, Turkey and Syria -- all this newfound Kurdish prosperity and democracy on their borders is beginning to agitate them into a desire to join their Iraqi brethren.

And that would require Turkey, Iran and Syria giving up territory.

And none of these countries wish to do that.

Which exact part of this don't you understand?

Bob

"Among other things, you never have learned that there is more than one kind of missile defense and that not all of them are called 'Star Wars.'"

This comment, by the way, came from an earlier thread, where I pointed out the simple incontrovertible fact that the "Star Wars" missile defense system doesn't work and is not likely to work any time in my lifetime. This didn't sit too well with dear little rdw, since it's an article of faith with him that St. Reagan used "Star Wars" to end the Cold War and that Gorby recoiled in terror from its threat. And since St. Bush has now deployed this (non-working) system, that made it doubly sanctified.

He, gloating at my supposed ignorance, claimed that the Israeli's disagreed with me because they were employing a missile defense system. I had to gently point out to him that not all missiles are alike and that the missile defense system that the Israeli's were developing had nothing at all to do with "Star Wars" or the (non-working) defense system that Bush had ordered deployed. I don't think that rdw ever did figure out just how clueless he revealed himself to be in that little discussion.

Lassie? Nah, I really like collies.

I think of him as more of a blowup doll, such as the inflatable pilot from "Airplane" - The kind that has a heavy bottom - You know, you punch it and it tips to the floor, but then springs back and rocks to and fro with a really stupid look on it's face - Plus, it is only full of hot air - Vaccous, with no brain or heart.

Wootten, our Comic Relief Punching Bag.

And Witless, while I'm here - CF Shep will get on me to have more eggnog - I am not the one who bemoaned not having the three networks the way they once dominated - Never said that - I rarely watch network at any hour and could care less who anchors the news. Hell, I don't even care for the majority of the sports announcers and color commentators. You wasted a very long post thinking that it was I who made that comment.
But, then, you are extremely good at wasting comments.

rdw, just as clueless as ever, writes: "Because they're capitalists and that's what capitalist do. They also have oil and gas, plenty of water, a tourist trade and a long history of trade and commerce."

LOL.... Poor guy ... is this really the best you can do? "A tourist trade?" Wow....

"Almost immediately after Saddam was chased out of his palace the cranes went up in Kurdistan building Airports, Universities, Houses, shopping malls etc."

Don't you just love this guy? He's got nothing but slogans, but by god, he's going to spout them come what may, even if by doing so he shows himself to be a complete ignoramus. No comment needed on my part, of course.

Has he mentioned how smart George Bush is for tearing up the Kyoto treaty and how there is no such thing as Global Warming?

I'm still getting warmed up.

GWB didn't tear up Kyoto. He didn't do a thing. Or, put another way, he did exactly as Bill Clinton did, nothing.

Bill Clinton played you for the perfect sap. He negotiated a treaty he had no intention of trying to pass just to impress you. His genius of course was in recognizing liberals, even knowing he did nothing, would in fact still be impressed.

I am beginning to think there might be global warming. It hit 70 in PA today. Are you kidding me? I put my Xmas lights up in a T-shirt. That's cool! Why is everyone so crazy? I was planning on retiring to Florida. Now I'm thinking, why? I want more of it.

The other cool thing about GW is that it just proves americans are what John Kerry said we are. The 'can do' people. We are getting so friggin clean some scientists are suggesting THATS causing GW. With so few pollutants more sunlight is hitting the surface and being absorbed thu creating and holding more heat.

We can't win!

If I could access it online I'd send you the article from our Daily Local last week listing an unusual surge of properties being sold to an assortment of conservatories as part of a joint state county buyback program. In a few cases it's just the development rights but a number were larger tracts with a full ownership transfer. The land will never be develped. It's just amazing how many long term programs are running designed to permanently improve the environment. When you consider Dick Nixon only created the EPA 35 years ago and how far we;ve come it's just another example of American exceptionalism. We lead the world. We are cleaner than everyone else (industrial economies) and getting even cleaner faster.

It's going to be interesting in 2010 when they look at the results of Kyoto and find out the non-signees were so much more successful than the signees.

thethirdPaul:

Yeah, that works. Especially a clown one :)

But I guess I have different associations with collies than you do. My ex-fiancee was a devotee of both Lassie and the Lad: A Dog series by Albert Payson Terhune (a New Jersey native back when north Jersey was still mostly farmland). So I had to go spend $300 I really didn't have on an adult blue merle collie who she absolutely adored -- but who was dumb as a stump. Hence the easy association for me between Lassie -- the "genius dog" who did everything but quadratic equations except that most non-working collies (border collies, of course, excepted) are as dumb and in-bred as ours -- and rdw.

You know, line breeding, I never did understand that. You'd look at his pedigree and his great-grandfather was also his grandfather. Sheesh.

Bob

Because they're capitalists and that's what capitalist do…. rdw 12:18 AM |

To return to you mythical Kurdistan, you are more apt to locate the Land of Cockaigne because neither Turkey nor Iran
will permit an independent Kurdish country. In fact Iran has taken military action there.

The Sunnis in Iraq will not allow for a fully independent Kurdish state either.

"Kurdistan" has become a rightist talking point in as much as they are desperate to claim some modicum of success from the fiasco of Bush's invasion. The Kurds, who have been desiring a state for centuries, are also talking up Kurdistan in hopes that the US will make it a reality.

"he hasn't mentioned Margaret Thatcher tonight either."

Or liberal academics who are "wrong about everything." Maybe it's a clone we're talking to?

Classic rdw: "I haven't followed this closely and don't care much but consider Juan Cole is an academic. That all but disqualifies him from having an intelligent opinion."

Oh, and let's not forget that, according to dear little rdw, St. Reagan "invented [supply-side economics] in 1981." And yes, that's a direct quote.

And three more, about St. Bush:

"Conversely, you cannot deny GWB has been an exceptional political leader. He's has the same WH posturing to deal with but he's the 'man'."

"The foreign policy story of GWB will be a brillaint [sic] diplomatic realignment with a dramatic disengagement away from France and Germany balanced by closer ties with many other states."

"GWB was very successful in his early career."

It came out, in further discussion, that he knew absolutely nothing about Bush's early career!

By the way, if you're mining for rdw nuggets, you should also broaden your search to include "Posted by: rw" since he went by that handle when he first posted here.

Shorter Wooten:

Global Warming is *good*. I don't have to retire to Florida now, yippee !

Sheesh ...

Bob

rdw, just as funny as can be, writes: "I'm still getting warmed up."

I was going to watch a movie this evening, but this has been ever so much more entertaining. Alas, all good things must come to an end, so I'll be logging off shortly.

"That's cool! Why is everyone so crazy? I was planning on retiring to Florida. Now I'm thinking, why? I want more of it."

LOL.... Poor deluded sap. Knows nothing and is quite content in his ignorance.

"The other cool thing about GW is that it just proves americans are what John Kerry said we are. The 'can do' people."

Oh my.... What did I say? Empty slogans, right on cue.

"We are getting so friggin clean some scientists are suggesting THATS causing GW. With so few pollutants more sunlight is hitting the surface and being absorbed thu creating and holding more heat."

ROFL.... Omigod.... The sheer stupidity of it all.... And the rest of it was just as bad. Amazing....

… find out the non-signees were so much more successful than the signees. rdw at 12:39 AM

rmck1 wrote: "Shorter Wooten: Global Warming is *good*. I don't have to retire to Florida now, yippee!"

You forgot the other one: "We're all so clean and shiny now!"

More classic rdw:

"Did you see the great commercial during the superbowl featuring the troops walking thru the airport? Most lefties were physically ill at the thoughts of GWBs soldiers getting such unabashed adulation."

"[George W. Bush] remade our world in his image."

"College faculties are filled with brilliant clowns who wear loafers because they can't keep their shoes tied. They have an extensive track record of being wrong on EVERYTHING. There's a reason why Soldiers are cheered and lefty professors are scorned. For all of their intellectual horsepower they're morons."

Much of my rdw mining comes from this thread. If you're bored here, check it out. Look for "posted by: rw" since that's what he was going by there.

since it's an article of faith with him that St. Reagan used "Star Wars" to end the Cold War and that Gorby recoiled in terror from its threat.

And I have a great deal of company including Gorby himself!

History is going to be a bitch for you my friend. This is such a cool story and it's so well documented on both sides.

I'll give you one of my favorite RR stories. His summit with Gorby in the Capital of Iceland is now his most famous. I think it was the 3rd. Hopes were high for a major arms reduction deal. They spent many hours negotiating at times just RR and Gorby in the room (RR was the lead negotiator for the screen actors guild for many years) and in the end thought they had a deal for reductions far beyond expectations. The team was estatic. Then Gorby added, but you must end Star Wars. RR said no. With little time left panicked aides tried to convince RR this was a good deal. They took a vote with Schultz and Weinberger particating. It was 8-1 to accept the deal. RR was the 1. He refused.

That's not the story.

On AF1 on the way home Mike Deaver is trying to get a demoralized staff prepared for an aggressive press rollout. Anticipating the MSM will kill them. After 4 hours of prep and a rollout plan he decides to visit Reagan in his cabin and update him. Before he got very far RR stopped him and handed him a speech he had already written on yellow legal paper with instructions to call the networks to ask them for 1/2 Hr to address the nation the next night. Deaver was flabbergasted. He read the speech liked it and then circulated. RR wrote it in long hand, one draft with only a few crossouts. The circulated comments came back with few changes. The next night he gave virtually the identical speech on national TV. The next day his polls were up. He went over the heads of the MSM and they never got a chance to define the story. George Schultz now considers it one of Reagans finest hours.

Those pieces of legal paper are on display in the national archives. 90% of the libs were swearing RR was senile at the time. History will not be kind to the libs.

For those of you who don't know him, rdw has posted here for the last two years, mocking and deriding liberals as pansies who would never win an election again -- you know, what with the permananent Republican majority and all. Apparently Mark Steyn deluded him into thinking that liberals were defective, that the entire world was Republican, and that Bush would successfully win the election by playing politics with troop levels and gas prices.

After the Democratic blowout, apparently rdw got a hold of the grain alochol and went on the bender to end all benders. After his five-state drinking spree a little boy found him naked in a field in Iowa, where authorities were able to ID him by his "Wooten Hearts Rove Forever" tattoo.

His family came and brought him back to Pennsylvania, where's he's currently undergoing treatment for his PTSD.

You can imagine how you might have some serious stress as well had you spent hours and hours telling people that liberals can't win elections, that Rumsfeld would never be let go, that we've already won in Afghanistan and Iraq when in fact both of those countries are falling to pieces, etc.

Good luck, Wooten, it takes a brave man to be so thoroughly humiliated like you've been and to come back here talking about issues pretending that nothing ever happened, particularly with your dismal record. We, the liberals who kicked your electoral ass, salute you!

The boy even talks like his lord and master. "Some scientists say" - Shrub uses that often - "Some people say", or "Some people would like you to believe" -

Tell me what were their names, Woot, what were their names on the good Looney Tunes NOAA ship?

Mike wrote: "The US economy is, thanks to Bush and the Republican Party, too debt-ridden for anyone to anticipate that it will be doing well in the near future."

Short term, it may do quite well, although there are signs that the business cycle is turning downward again. Bush's damage is more long-term. It's not going to hit us in the next couple of years, other than through the wasted opportunity of not doing anything about the national debt, Medicare, Social Security, or the impending Baby Boomer retirement when we were at the top of the cycle. No, where we're going to be hit is several years down the road, at which point dear little rdw will be moaning about the taxes being raised and begging for St. Reagan and St. Bush to save him.

thethirdPaul wrote: "Tell me what were their names, Woot, what were their names on the good Looney Tunes NOAA ship?"

LOL... Don't hold your breath. I've been asking those questions for months. Dear little rdw never has bothered to actually think about, much less support, his many assertions.

The greatest likelihood is that in 2010, China will remain the more successful economy and they, like the US are not-signers

The Chinese are signers. So are the Brazilians, Indians and 100 other nations the limits don't apply to. They essentially told the UN to shove it up their ass if the rules applied to them so they got a waiver. That's why Kyoto was such a joke and the USA never considered it.

I can't imagine what measure you are using to suggest the Chinese economy is more successful but they're not even close. In fact the will be the last successful when you look at pollution. They have among the worst air pollution in the world with every indication it's going to be much worse. In many cities those surgical masks are common and respiratory problems are increasing exponentially.

All socialists economies are disasters. China is the worst example of a socialist economy in transition to capitalism which is managing capitalist growth rates with socialist efficiency. China is an ecological nightmare and the prefect example of the grostesque stupidity of Kyoto. By placing limits on the developed world and giving waivers to the undeveloped world Kyoto excelerated the transfer of manufacturing capacity from the USA with it's environmental protections to China with none.

Kyoto made the environment much worse.

Short term, it may do quite well, although there are signs that the business cycle is turning downward again. Bush's damage is more long-term.

The US economy is in fabulous shape as reflected in the high stock prices which are near post-bubble highs as well as low long term bond rates reflecting low long term inflation. We have 4.4% unemployment and a below average deficit which is shrinking rapidly. We've had 3 years of record corporate profits and surging tax collections as well as growth Europeans can't even dream of. Not only are Corportions highly profitable but debt is at record lows and many have been buying their own stock. This sector has never been stronger.

Our ecomony is one of the wonders of the world.

rdw, bent on continuing to display his ignorance, writes: "And I have a great deal of company including Gorby himself!"

Nope, sorry. I debunked this particular myth of yours a long time ago, using Gorby's own words, along with contemporaneous accounts. You are flatly wrong on this. We've been through this before, dear. "Star Wars," as it was then envisioned simply did not, and could not, work, and Gorbachev knew it.

"History is going to be a bitch for you my friend. This is such a cool story and it's so well documented on both sides."

ROFLMAO... That it is, which is why your silly assertions are so freaking hilarious.

"I'll give you one of my favorite RR stories. His summit with Gorby in the Capital of Iceland is now his most famous."

Dear heart, we've been though this before. Something did happen at Reykjavik, but it had not one damn thing to do with "Star Wars." That is exclusively your own little fantasy, unsupported by Reagan, by Gorbachev, or by contemporaneous records either here or in Russia. Your little fairy tale about Deaver and Reagan is equally silly -- it's pure hagiography. I find it amusing that you continue to spout these tales even after they've been shown to be the fantasies that they are.

"Those pieces of legal paper are on display in the national archives. 90% of the libs were swearing RR was senile at the time. History will not be kind to the libs."

ROFLMAO.... No comment necessary. Poor guy...

Dear little rdw, just as determined as ever, writes: "The US economy is in fabulous shape"

No, dear, it's not, which is why there have been warning signs about problems ahead, not to mention all of the other various problems we've seen over the past year or so, including the ongoing collapse of the housing bubble.

"as reflected in the high stock prices which are near post-bubble highs"

Dear heart, have you ever heard of something called a P/E ratio?

"a below average deficit which is shrinking rapidly."

No to both of these, dear. It's not below average and it's not "shrinking rapidly." It has been reduced, it's true, but that's hardly surprising at the peak of the business cycle. That it will shrink to nothing is not in the cards. Taxes will have to be raised to pay this bill.

"We've had 3 years of record corporate profits and surging tax collections as well as growth Europeans can't even dream of."

LOL.... Along with stagnating salaries and soaring health care costs, not to mention the rocks ahead of Social Security, Medicare, and the baby boomer retirement.

"Our ecomony is one of the wonders of the world."

ROFL.... So you keep saying, dear. I'm afraid that the general public disagrees with you, along with many economists.

…I can't imagine what measure you are using to suggest the Chinese economy is more successful but they're not even close…rdw at 1:12 AM

…The U.S. economy has never been so dependent on foreign capital and companies. Foreign direct investment has flooded the country since 1990 -- more than $1.6 trillion in fifteen years, and foreign-owned assets have quintupled in that time to $12.5 trillion. Foreign buyers -- Japan and China leading the pack -- have become primary holders of expanding American debt….
If you hold a nation's foreign reserves, you have control of their economy. Sell off, and their currency declines in value as what is currently happening.

We saw the failure of capitalism in 1929. What exists now is capitalism wholly dependent on government intervention, socialism for capitalists, if you please.

The idea that Kyoto, i.e. environmental regulations, is making the environment worse is clearly delusional unless you love smog, acid rain, and watching pollution ruin children's health.

It's not quite that simple, Mike, since such a selloff would affect China, as well. In any case, dear little rdw is simply exposing his usual mindless jingoism, ignoring the simple fact that the Chinese GDP is not that far behind ours and that their growth (and growth potential) exceeds ours.

That, by the way, does not and will not necessarily make them more "successful," since growth and GDP are just two measures among many that determine the relative success of an economy. This is something that dear little rdw has never been able to wrap his head around.

The US economy is in fabulous shape. . .

We disagree.

Go ahead, tell us we're wrong. See where it gets you.

万维网酒店联盟,是一个专门为您提供酒店资讯的网站，是一个可以轻松实现酒店预定 酒店预订的平台.

Go ahead, tell us we're wrong. See where it gets you.

It hasn't stopped him or his fellow travellers yet. They're clinging to denial like the last life raft off the Titanic. Maybe another landslide or two will finally send the message.

It's not below average and it's not "shrinking rapidly." It has been reduced, it's true, but that's hardly surprising at the peak of the business cycle.

It absolutely is below average and it's absolutely shrinking rapidly. As we saw in the last GDP report Corporate profits are smoking and now we're getting surging capital gains.

The best part of the turnaround was rwo yeats ago when the two biggest clowns in Europe, Chirac and Schroeder, complained the USA deficits were a danger. The dumb bastards were either unaware their own deficits were worse or just assumed in speaking to a liberal audience those dumb bastards would not know any better.

In both France and Germany the deficit is double USA levels and still moving in the opposite direction. One twit on this board got all excited when the 1st GDP report of 3rd Qrt growth showed 1.6% growth. Finally Western Europe with their superior socialistic model would surpass the USA. Except they came in at 0.6% and our number was revised up to 2.2%. We're only growing 4x's as fast with per capita GDP 6x's as fast.

We need to run, run away from them as fast as possible. We've been bailing them out for almost 100 years. Let the muslims rule Europe.

In both France and Germany the deficit is double USA levels and still moving in the opposite direction. One twit on this board got all excited when the 1st GDP report of 3rd Qrt growth showed 1.6% growth. Finally Western Europe with their superior socialistic model would surpass the USA. Except they came in at 0.6% and our number was revised up to 2.2%. We're only growing 4x's as fast with per capita GDP 6x's as fast.

Good God, he's not human. He's a Republican Party talking points bot that never stops posting.

Somewhere in that swirl of bullshit and confusion is a kernel of knowledge that no one really cares about.

We are the qreatest country in the history of civilization. Things always get better in America. We're going back to Eden and no pencil neck eco-freak at the UN can stop us.

Uh...uh...yes. Yes.

Why does my...why does my head hurt?

Uh. God, I am so dizzy and confused.

Hang on....

Okay, guys. GUYS! Listen up.

rdw is right, man. I'm starting to think I was wrong all along and rdw is right.

Oh, boy. Why do I hear this buzzing sound? Where is the buzzing sound coming from?

I wholeheartedly concur; rdw is right.

is a kernel of knowledge that no one really cares about.

Th Europeans care. Why so you think they're so miserable? Polls have been consistent for decades showing Europeans as the most pessimistic people in the planet. We of course know that from birthrate stats.

They are watching the USA run away from them. We are better than them at everything. We're far wealthier with dramatically bigger houses, lots, cars, vacation homes and far more toys including dryers, microwaves, big screens etc. They can't afford decent sized houses and cars. To rub it in we're getting even wealthier at a faster rate.

You think they hate us now? Wait until 2020 when USA per capita income is 2x's European levels or about 2035 when it's 3x's and the USA will be closer to pristine than any other nation.

They're miserable for a reason.

BTW. While Northern Europe has higher birth rates than Southern Europe they're moving in that direction. It's not as bad as it's going to be.

Yes, you're absolutely, 100% correct. Thank you.

Why does my...why does my head hurt?

It's guilt. I've been very un-PC and you're not allowed to read anything that isn't PC. All cultures are supposed to be equal and the thought just seeped into your liberal mind, "perhaps they're not all equal" Horrors!

Economic stats suck don't they?

Be honest. When you hear India is building huge refineries to export finished product to the USA it drives you right up a wall. You know the only reason India is doing this is because of Kyoto. You know the USA is exporting manufacturing at a furious rate because we can and keep unemployment at 4.4%. You know what's happening to pollution levels in Canada and India and the USA.

You know in a battle of wits between the capitalist and eco-freaks the pencil-necks are toast.

Look at the bright side. Everyone wins. India gets a huge employer and healthy export business for a growing ecoomy. The USA gets the finished product without the pollution. The refiners get much lower costs and higher profit margins. The tanker business is booming.

>>CF Shep will get on me to have more eggnog

Hey, I'm just rolling on the floor ovah here.

It's taken me a while to get through the sheer volume of posts to see if there was anything left for me to say about the clueless bowl of Froot Loops' serial difficulties with rational thought.

Carry on.

I'd point ya'll to a NYTimes article this am about the new China-Saudi investment deals. The prince's are buying up big chunks of the Chinese banking IPO's and other goodies with the marginal profits from higher oil prices.

Hmmmm?

The better to fund the 23,000+ members of the royal family who are currently paid lavish remittances to cavort on the Med and shop at Harrod's.

You don't understand, CFShep--

rdw is right.

That buzzing sound behind my ear is making so much sense now. When I ignore the facts and read his words over and over again, it all makes sense to me and I'm in a warm, happy place where there are bunnies and flowers and rainbows...peace and calm are all around and cherubs are playing lutes and softly hitting heart shaped tamborines...

Bzzzzzzzzzz....

Oh, the happy colors...the happy colors...buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Buzzzzzzzzzzz! I can feel myself being eaten by a purple marshmallow made out of fluffy cloud material...I can hear the blades of grass rubbing against each other ten miles away like the touch of two violin strings on a single bow...buzzzzzzzz! Buzzzzzzz!

Reagan good. Clinton bad! Carter bad!

the happy colors make so much sense now...

I'd point ya'll to a NYTimes article this am about the new China-Saudi investment deals. The prince's are buying up big chunks of the Chinese banking IPO's and other goodies with the marginal profits from higher oil prices.

I'm sure there's a point here but what? Libs stunned to find the Sauds have a bit of extra cash to invest? There's news. I rather like the Chinese angle. They're becoming quite the capitalist!

Local Chairman of United Morons for Bush: I rather like the Chinese angle. They're becoming quite the capitalist!

Utterly frackin' clueless.

Oh, and a plural subject takes a plural object.

Bzzzzzzzz.....[short circuit]....bzzzzzzz.

Cf,

Lighten up! There's a bright side to everything. Saudi's investing in the Chinese banking sector is a good thing. We want a mature Chinese economy. They have 1.3B consumers! The Europeans aren't much help. Celebrate the emergence of China and India.

Regarding the huge oil refinery in India. OK it's not going to help their pollution but ut helps ours. It will employ over 10,000 workers in well paying jobs and have a positive ripple effect throughout the Indian economy. Think of all of rhose new consumers for American products.

Pale Rider,

You are a bit late to the party - I converted after he told the story about Saint Ronny turning water into wine. And the time SR literally walked atop the Potomac to Falls Church. And how he and Mother Teresa Nancy turned Wonder Bread into loaves of Angel Dust Food Cake for the hoi polloi of DC.

Now I'm a believer. Say Hall-o-lula.

Lighten up! There's a bright side to everything.

Ahem!

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life
words and music by Eric Idle

Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best...

And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...

If life seems jolly rotten
There's something you've forgotten
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps
Don't be silly chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle - that's the thing.

And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...

For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin - give the audience a grin
Enjoy it - it's your last chance anyhow.

So always look on the bright side of death
Just before you draw your terminal breath

Life's a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true.
You'll see it's all a show
Keep 'em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.

And always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the right side of life...
(Come on guys, cheer up!)
Always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the bright side of life...
(Worse things happen at sea, you know.)
Always look on the bright side of life...
(I mean - what have you got to lose?)
(You know, you come from nothing - you're going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!)
Always look on the right side of life...

Well, it must be Friday - Turned on C-Span and Brian Lamb was having a typical chit chat with a Publican - The Clueless Moning Charen.

Then, Witless is back for an early start for his usual weekend marathon of drivel.

And, some journeyman, albeit honest, hack has tied the record of a true master - and will probably break it today.

Now, which thread can I hurl some venom upon.

Dear little rdw, just as confused as ever, writes: "It absolutely is below average"

No, dear, it's not. This is an incontrovertible fact. I know that you have trouble with these, but you really should learn to deal with them. You'll look ever so much less foolish.

"and it's absolutely shrinking rapidly."

No, dear, it's not. See above.

"The best part of the turnaround was rwo yeats ago when the two biggest clowns in Europe, Chirac and Schroeder, complained the USA deficits were a danger."

Yes, dear, they are. The two "clowns" were absolutely correct. This has also been supported by "clowns" like Alan Greenspan. Remember him?

"The dumb bastards were either unaware their own deficits were worse"

LOL.... No, dear, they aren't. You really do have trouble with facts, don't you?

"We need to run, run away from them as fast as possible. We've been bailing them out for almost 100 years. Let the muslims rule Europe."

ROFL.... No comment necessary. The poor guy is simply delusional. Every single statement in this post of his was verifiably wrong.

Saint Ronny turning water into wine.

Now, now let's not exagerate. It's clear dropping rates from 70% to 28% was an amazing acheivement and the economy has been stunning ever since but as Ronnie has been explaining since the 40's it's all about getting Govt out of the way and letting people shine.

In fact I just saw a stat the oher day that since RR became President the average new home has more than doubled in size. That's not Ronnie. That's us.

Dear little rdw, just as cute as he can be, writes: "Th Europeans care."

No, dear one, they don't, although it's not too surprising that you would think so.

"Why so you think they're so miserable?"

Dear heart, you really should stop making shit up. It simply makes you look foolish.

"Polls have been consistent for decades showing Europeans as the most pessimistic people in the planet."

LOL.... No, dear, they haven't. As usual, you are simply making shit up because you cannot deal with reality.

"We of course know that from birthrate stats."

LOL.... No comment necessary. Isn't he fun?

"We are better than them at everything.

LOL... Well, aside from medical care, quality of life, taking care of the poor, elderly, and unfortunate, vacations, salaries and benefits, ... you know, unimportant shit like that.

"You think they hate us now?"

No, dear, I think they dislike our government's foreign policies. But then, so do I.

"They're miserable for a reason."

No, dear, they are not. Again, you're simply making shit up. I do so love it when you do, though, because a) it's highly entertaining, and b) it shows that you really don't have a case.

Dear little rdw, just as fun as he can be, writes: " It's clear dropping rates from 70% to 28% was an amazing acheivement"

Not really, dear, particularly not when St. Ronnie had to pass the biggest tax hikes in history to help pay for it and the subsequent two presidents had to pass similar aggressive tax hikes to re-balance the budget.

"and the economy has been stunning ever since"

ROFL.... Well, aside from a couple of recessions, massive deficits, increasing national debt, a stagflation scare, stagnating wages, increasing economic imbalances, soaring health costs, a widening trade gap, a stock market bubble, a housing bubble, a falling dollar, etc.

Gee, do you think that rdw has simply been asleep for the past thirty years? It would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

"In fact I just saw a stat the oher day that since RR became President the average new home has more than doubled in size. That's not Ronnie. That's us."

ROFL.... Poor guy. I do so love shit like this. So wholly meaningless.

No, dear, they aren't. You really do have trouble with facts, don't you?

I'm quite good with facts. Our deficit is 1.7% of GDP while in France and Germany it reached over 3%.

More interesting is 3rd Qtr GDP. With the US at 2.2% and Western Europe at 0.6% we're growing 3.7x's as fast. On a per capita basis that's 5.5x's as fast.

If you compound that over time it's simply devastating. How can they not be bitter at the USA?

Embedded within that GDP report was a stunning 31% increase in Corporate profits and you can understand why tax collections surge. After the recent bull market in stocks we'll be seeing even higher tax collections.

The deficit is going down my friend.

Dear little rdw, just as confused as ever, writes: "I'm quite good with facts."

No, dear, you're not. I'm afraid that you just really don't understand what a "fact" is. I recommend a dictionary.

"Our deficit is 1.7% of GDP while in France and Germany it reached over 3%."

Dear heart, you're misguided on two counts. The first is that your numbers are flatly incorrect. The second is that the problem being complained about is not the deficit, it's the national debt, which has grown massively under George W. Bush. The deficit is a symptom; it's the servicing of the debt that is the real economic problem. And our national debt is worse than either France's or Germany's. We're running up a bill that will come due.

"The deficit is going down my friend."

No, dear, it's not. Not really. But I'm afraid that you are simply incapable of understanding the reality of the current situation. Oh well ... maybe some day.

PaulB,

We are running away quite rapidly. As you know all combat troops have been removed permanently from Europe and that's over 100,000. Alone with them most support personnel were permantently removed of course with their families. We not only shut a series of bases we returned all of our rights to the host countries. We're not coming back. You are of course aware of Condi's announcement of the shift of State Dept personnel from Europe to the Middle East and Asia and you nay have seen last weeks announcement the Navy has shut down the Atlantic fleet which covered the North Atlantic some but mostly the Med.

That's a shame. I spent many a happy night in Palma and Naples.

You've got to read. We're not walking away we're running. You are at least aware the polls for the UN and EU, especially France, are in the toilet. Politicians read polls and Europe ain't happening.

Dear little rdw, just as funny as ever, writes: "It's guilt."

No, dear, it's dealing with utter stupidity and wild delusions.

"I've been very un-PC"

No, dear, you have been utterly stupid and wildly delusional.

"All cultures are supposed to be equal and the thought just seeped into your liberal mind, 'perhaps they're not all equal' Horrors!"

ROFL.... Don't you just love those wild little fantasies he creates? It never seems to occur to the poor chap that the "liberal" he loves to demonize exists only in his own mind.

"Economic stats suck don't they?"

LOL.... How would you know, dear? You haven't been right yet!

"Be honest."

We are, dear, always.

"When you hear India is building huge refineries to export finished product to the USA it drives you right up a wall."

ROFL.... How can you not love this guy? So clueless on so many levels....

"You know the only reason India is doing this is because of Kyoto."

ROFL.... This one actually did have me laughing out loud! Oh man... you don't suppose he actually believes this, do you?

"You know the USA is exporting manufacturing at a furious rate"

Um, yeah.... Dear heart, in case you hadn't noticed, that isn't a good thing.

"You know what's happening to pollution levels in Canada and India and the USA."

Yes, dear, we do. Sadly, it looks as though you do not.

"You know in a battle of wits between the capitalist and eco-freaks the pencil-necks are toast."

LOL... Don't you just love the stereotypes this guy uses?

"Look at the bright side. Everyone wins."

No, dear, they don't, which is just one reason why the Democrats now control both houses of Congress. Alas, poor rdw... wrong in so many ways on so many topics. Someone should report this guy to Guiness.

Grapes of wrath for French vineyards as millions of bottles are destroyed
JENNY BARCHFIELD
IN BELLEVILLE-SUR-SAONE
MORE than eight million litres of this season's production of Beaujolais wine is being turned into near-pure alcohol for use in disinfectants, cleaning products or fuel additives, as French vineyards face up to a massive overproduction crisis.

A chronic wine glut, falling domestic consumption and fierce overseas competition have converged to create a wine crisis on an unprecedented scale. With "lakes" of unsold wine threatening to undermine prices, the European Union has resorted to paying vintners to destroy some of their stock each year, distilling billions of bottles of perfectly drinkable wine into pure alcohol.

Sceptics say the measure, which cost EU taxpayers 150 million (£100 million) last year alone, is merely a quick fix that does not get to the root of the problem - which is that Europe simply produces too much wine for too few consumers.
***********************************************8

PAULB,

Just one example of how inept the EU can be. They need a govt committee to make simple business decisions. They're pathetic. The Aussies, our best allies, are eating their lunch.

Dear little rdw, still bent on displaying his ignorance for all to see, writes: "We are running away quite rapidly."

Sigh.... whatever, dear. This little rant of yours was just as delusional as the rest of them but, alas, wasn't nearly as funny. You really should work on it, dear heart.

"You've got to read."

ROFL... Coming from you, dear, this is a rather ludicrous statement, particularly given just how many inaccurate statements you've made on this very thread.

"We're not walking away we're running."

Whatever you say, dear, just as we will be in Iraq.

"You are at least aware the polls for the UN and EU, especially France, are in the toilet."

ROFL.... Dear heart, you really should stop making shit up. It just makes you look foolish.

"Politicians read polls and Europe ain't happening."

LOL... Whatever you say, dear. I'm sure that your delusions keep you happy in the middle of the night.

Dear little rdw, just as happy as a clam because he found a France-bashing story, writes: [well, nothing, because the poor chap has nothing to say.] Oh, well ... better luck next time.

Oh, yes, Woot Toot, we were so warm and fuzzy together as I would croon to you, "O Bambino Caro".

Next year, in Capri, si?

Caio, bambino.

In fact I just saw a stat the oher day that since RR became President the average new home has more than doubled in size. That's not Ronnie. That's us.

It's not just the homes that have doubled in size...it's the average American.

And our national debt is worse than either France's or Germany's.

Our debt as a percent of GDP is 64% versus 66% for France and 67% for German. via the CIA factbook. Much worse for France and Germany are dramatially higher welfare state liabilities on top of a shinking population.

You know, I completely understand and empathize with the tendency in these roundhouses with Wooten to want to bring up every argument he's ever had with us and throw it in his face.

But the tactical problem with this is that it lets Wooten control the conversation.

I think it'd be a bit more productive, instead of raking him over the coals about economic ideology which for him is a matter of blind faith, to keep the convo focused on the thread topic: how the Saudis want to kick Shi'ite ass -- in league with the Sunni insurgents who used to be our Main Enemy in the Central Front in the War on Terrorism.

I mean -- the irony is too delicious for us all not to rub Wooten's nose in this together like a family taking turns rubbing a dumb, inbred collie's face in its own shit :)

After all -- when even Jim Baker is at odds with Bush and Cheney -- then it's just more than amusing to listen to the dedicated mouthpieces try to rationalize this away ...

Bob

As you know all combat troops have been removed permanently from Europe and that's over 100,000.

Yes, we've moved our troops out of the hellhole of drab, rainy Germany and into warm, sunny Iraq, where their quality of life has improved markedly....

Stefan wrote: "It's not just the homes that have doubled in size...it's the average American."

Well, that just means that we're twice as good, right?

You know the USA is exporting manufacturing at a furious rate"

Um, yeah.... Dear heart, in case you hadn't noticed, that isn't a good thing.

It all depends on what is being exported. With 4.4% unemployment job losses are ont an issue. We are losing labor intensive, dirty, repetitive, low-skill, dangerous jobs that be done more cheaply elsewhere. That's why I can buy better sneaks and jeans today for less than I paid in 1980.

While we lose textile jobs in NC the community colleges are filled with new nurses, auto mechanics, electricians, etc. They're getting better, safer, more secure jobs. America works.

rmck1 wrote: "But the tactical problem with this is that it lets Wooten control the conversation."

That was going to be true, regardless, once we made the decision to engage with him.

"I think it'd be a bit more productive, instead of raking him over the coals about economic ideology which for him is a matter of blind faith,"

Every position he has is based on blind faith, not just the economic ideology. That's what makes him so amazing.

"to keep the convo focused on the thread topic: how the Saudis want to kick Shi'ite ass -- in league with the Sunni insurgents who used to be our Main Enemy in the Central Front in the War on Terrorism."

There's a new thread on that topic.

"I mean -- the irony is too delicious for us all not to rub Wooten's nose in this together like a family taking turns rubbing a dumb, inbred collie's face in its own shit :)"

Good point. I suppose I should really be mining for rdw's pronouncements on Iraq. I rather imagine they are as humorously wrong as are his pronouncements on, well, everything else.

"After all -- when even Jim Baker is at odds with Bush and Cheney -- then it's just more than amusing to listen to the dedicated mouthpieces try to rationalize this away ..."

He will, though; he can't help it. St. Bush is second only to St. Reagan in his pantheon.

PaulB:

It's like the old joke about the new Soviet microchip:

"It ees the BIGGEST microchip in the world!"

Bob

RR is synonymous with Rail Roads - That Western Pacific line has merged with Southern and has recently been shut down by a massive train wreck. Have not seen such a mess since those "neck ties" in Atlanta.

It's like bitch slappin' an 80 pound gunny sack full o' luke warm porridge.

Nothing makes an impression.

It's quite chilly here this morning so instead of eggnog I recommend:

Roy Enrico's Spiced, Hot Buttered Cider.

Good apple cider
whole cinnamon sticks
Whole cloves.

Heat. Ladle into a nice mug. Add a goodly measure of dark rum. Drop a pat of real butter on top.

It mutes that persistent buzzing nicely.

Kudos to PaulB - I raise a mug of steaming cider in toast.

rdw, just as amusing as ever, writes: "It all depends on what is being exported."

Yup, and exporting manufacturing jobs is not a good thing.

"With 4.4% unemployment job losses are ont an issue."

Yes, dear, they are, for several reasons, including a) the types of new jobs created are an issue, b) the job numbers being artificially low because so many folks have simply given up is an issue, and c) once the economy turns south again, we won't have a manufacturing base to shore things up is an issue. It all adds up.

"While we lose textile jobs in NC the community colleges are filled with new nurses, auto mechanics, electricians, etc. They're getting better, safer, more secure jobs. America works."

LOL.... More mindless slogans. I wonder if he will ever actually take the time to, you know, think?

It's not just the homes that have doubled in size...it's the average American.

Touche,

A bit of an exaggeration but there's some truth. Great wealth does have it's downside. We have too much food and too much choice. Freedom and wealth come with some responsibilies.

"Freedom and wealth come with some responsibilies."

ROFLMAO.... Omigod.... I can just imagine him in his basement intoning this.... "We have an awesome responsibility ... to not overeat!"

LOL.... This is just too good to be true.

Stefan,

"drab, rainy Germany"???

Why, sir, I still have a photograph of one entire summer in Schwaebisch Gmuend - I believe summer was a Tuesday in late August that year. Fortunately, I had my Leica with me that day.

rdw:

Jesus, Wooten, that's a helluvan admission. Yes -- great wealth brings with it great responsibilities.

And human nature being what it is ....

Sheesh -- I thought you conservatives had a properly crabbed vision of human nature. Isn't it always you always telling us that humankind isn't perfectable and warning us liberals off of dangerously utopian political ideas?

Well, expect for the fact that you really *aren't* a "conservative" -- at least not in the Burkean sense. "Small-government conservative" is more like an artifact of American history borne of Constitution-worship. Thomas Jefferson would barf all over his grave if he saw what the economic elite have done to his (radical at the time) Anti-Federalism. Your more proper patron saint is Alexander Hamilton -- you know, the central banking advocate who wanted to crown Washington king?

So if you can accept the fact that great wealth requires great responsibility -- perhaps you can begin to understand how Islamic cultures find globalization and the huge wealth that leverages for a tiny elite so threatening to their religions values.

It is, in fact, precisely why Osama and his followers so deeply despise the decadent, wastrel Saudi royal family ...

Bob

Prior to the election, there was a trool who posted under the stage name of Imigo Montoya - the character from The Princess Bride - You know, the fellow who avenged the death of his father. Well, the trool was to have had a confrontation with the gang on November the 8th - Has been a no show. Hmmm

However, PaulB, your rapier is swifter and far more true - You are indeed a skilled swordsman and wordsmith.

Every position he has is based on blind faith, not just the economic ideology.

Not at all.

The USA las lower debt and deficits than France and Germany as well as dramatically faster GDP growth and significantly lower lower unemployment.

Them's the facts. There's no ideology. The green card in demand is the USA green card. There's a reason for that. We have 300M people living the good live and 3B more who want to join us.

Here's the really amazing thing about unemployment. It's 4.4% and the boomers are starting to retire. We are facing dramatic labor shortages. Our economy continues to create good jobs at a rapid pace and we have a wave of retirements coming. What a time to be graduating!

More rdw goodness, all from earlier this year:

"It's NOTHING like Vietnam. The attempts by the left to make it into Vietnam have been politically disasterous."

"As the Iraqi stand up the USA will stand down. The Iraqi military is expected to reach it designed size by late summer. A very substantial portion is well trained, increasingly well experienced and taking over large portions of the fight."

"I know more Americans have died in Iraq. That was the price of removing a menance and making the world a safer place. It was also important to let the terrorist know Americans are very different than Europeans. They know the Europeans will not defend themselves. Osama knows if he comes out of his rat-hole GWB will cram a missle up his ass."

"GWB has made the world a very different place. Liberals would be quaking with their European peers hurling moronic platitude while comforting themselves with their sophistication. GWB is hunting down terrorist and killing them."

"Suicide bombers have dropped by 60% since 2005 because of vastly improved intelligence and the fact the tribes are now starting to kill foreigners on sight."

"The MSM has played this perfectly wrong. Liberals cheerleading for a civil war won't make it happen. Al Qaeda is about killing Iraqi's and the Iraqi's know it. Now they're being hunted down and killed by Iraqi's."

"I believe the count for fully trained army and police is up to 235,000 and they're turning out between 6,000 and 10,000 per month with no shortage of recruits. They control 60% of Baghdad and we turn over more territory every week."

"Ain't happening. We're winning anyway and will start to stand down before the election."

"We're not whipping anything up. The vast majority of suicide bombers are foreigners and they're killing Iraqi's. What would you expect? It's a good thing they kill foreign insurgents and it's even better the message gets out not to bother coming in the 1st place."

On politics:

June, 2006: "You can attack GWB all day and all night. It did not work in 2002 and most definitely did not work in 2004. His 23% increase in votes is the most ever."

"[Rove's] still the man and there isn't a thing you can do about it. Consider the uber-wealthy Bob Schrum. He's made a fortune advising Democratic candidtes on how to lose. Karl does nothing but win."

"His polls are back up to 45% at Rasmussen and after these recent beatings from the MSM that's quite decent. I know your all atitter over your election chances but I'd caution you not to get too excited. This is a bi-annual ritual. Since 1994 you've been getting excited after every off year election knowing 'we're going to win the next time'. Then you lose and you get depressed."

And let's close with the grand capper: " In addition to being left-handed I have a bit of color-blindness. Fortunately when the good Lord takes away in one area he gives in another. In my case it's political insight."

>>3B more who want to join us.

I'd say you should welcome 'em one and all to your basement.

If that doesn't suffice, we can probably find a few Kurdish cab drivers who'd leap at the chance.

Dear little rdw, running out of things to say, writes: "Not at all."

Yes, dear, as we've amply demonstrated on this very thread.

"There's no ideology."

ROFLMAO.... No comment necessary. The final paragraph of his is simply delusional, particularly since it is entirely ... wait for it ... ideology.

Funny how almost 22 hours ago, Carl Nyberg posted Frist with a comment, actually on topic, about whether the plan had been concocted by Sun Tzu or Covey.

So many organizations have sent their staff to a Covey presentation - They are paid to attend, some listen intently, some take copious notes, however, most toss the ideas in the either the trash bin or place their notes in the far recesses of their desks.

Perhaps, the entire Court of St George, including their jester, went to a Covey seminar and promptly forgot the matter. Must move onward in a staying the course manner. Sort of like a treadmill or Nordic Track workout machine.

Where, oh where has the thread gone - Gone to Chester County once again. Mea Culpa and now, some excellent egg nog.

rdw:

And besides which -- who are *you* to even *question* the free-market imperatives of a fat mom with fat kids cruising down the supermarket aisles and digging into all that dee-licious FREEDOM OF CHOICE, eh?

What -- are you now questioning the eternal wisdom of St. Miltie? Isn't a sclerotic, diabetic older population simply a small price to pay for such unparalleled ability to live our lives THE WAY WE WANT?

I mean ... St. Miltie didn't believe in such humbug as "negative externalities." They were a feature to him, not a bug.

So ... what? Are you a *genuine* conservative who recognizes that human behavior is, in fact, fallible?

Or are you a MILTION FRIEDMAN UTOPIAN who believes that all human choice leads at the end of the day to greater happiness for all?

You can't honestly be both.

Bob

rdw:

And besides which -- who are *you* to even *question* the free-market imperatives of a fat mom with fat kids cruising down the supermarket aisles and digging into all that dee-licious FREEDOM OF CHOICE, eh?

What -- are you now questioning the eternal wisdom of St. Miltie? Isn't a sclerotic, diabetic older population simply a small price to pay for such unparalleled ability to live our lives THE WAY WE WANT?

I mean ... St. Miltie didn't believe in such humbug as "negative externalities." They were a feature to him, not a bug.

So ... what? Are you a *genuine* conservative who recognizes that human behavior is, in fact, fallible?

Or are you a MILTON FRIEDMAN UTOPIAN who believes that all human choice leads at the end of the day to greater happiness for all?

You can't honestly be both.

Bob

More rdw goodness, from earlier this year: "As far as the Middle East Afghanistan and Israel have never been in better shape. The damage from Clintons disasterous Oslo accords has been reversed and we have a much stronger Israel defending itself against a far more isolated Palestine. Terrorism as a political force has been defeated. GWBs support for Sharon allowed him to crush the Infatada and set up defensible borders."

perhaps you can begin to understand how Islamic cultures find globalization and the huge wealth that leverages for a tiny elite so threatening to their religions values.

Islam has ALWAYS been a violent religion. Mohammad was a general who butchered more people than any of the current killers. Osama isn't remotely threatened by globalization. Liberals are threatened by globalization. Osama wishes to kill infidels. His problem with the West isn't our globalization but the superiority of our culture. There has't been a scientific advancement frmo an Islamic country in 500 years. The Middle East was colonized by the Europeans. How humiliating is that?

BTW: You can't stop globalization and more than you can stop the rain. Just look at Kyoto. It's a friggin disaster and you know it. They're building huge refineries in India for the EXPORT markets. That's 100% the result of Kyoto. You know for a fact China and India are ecological disasters and you know you caused it.

The Local Chairman of Morons United for Bush -

Their Motto: 'GWB - A President only a true moron could love. He's genuinely one of us.'

" In addition to being left-handed I have a bit of color-blindness. Fortunately when the good Lord takes away in one area he gives in another. In my case it's political insight."

Oh, I'd forgotten this gem. Gurgling...

Any takers on a match between TLCofMforB and my cat as to which possesses a greater capacity for 'political insight'.

Islam has ALWAYS been a violent religion.

Yeah, and Christianity has always been about peace, love and understanding.

And if you don't believe me, I've got a sword I can run through your ear to make you believe it.

Where, oh where has the thread gone - Gone to Chester County once again. Mea Culpa and now, some excellent egg nog.

I have some purple microdot acid that will help that eggnog take away the buzzing sound...

So ... what? Are you a *genuine* conservative who recognizes that human behavior is, in fact, fallible?

Or are you a MILTON FRIEDMAN UTOPIAN who believes that all human choice leads at the end of the day to greater happiness for all?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean but if you are suggesting Freidman didn't recognize people are fallible you are the idiot not him. You are presenting a false choice.

I am a small govt conservative most closely represented by Reagan. Not what he was able to do but what he wanted to do. Presidents are not kings.

I'm not quite sure where you are heading regarding fat people. Are you thinking of a govt funded gestapo in th supermarkets making sure fat people buy fat free? How about if they're too perky? Will they have to do sugar free?

People make all sorts of bad choices our freedom and wealth allow. I'd like to think fat people are our biggest problem. The fact is we have far too many liberals. Fortunately they don't breed so it's self-correcting.

rdw:

Wow, you really *are* a closed-minded sonovabitch. Ever read the book of Joshua? It's essentially a manual on how to committ righteous genocide. All three Abrahamic religions have elements of bloodthirstiness, just as they all have moments of supreme compassion and mercy. The medieval Christians certainly weren't any less averse to bloodthirsty conquest than the Muslims, who actually ran a pretty tolerant civilization prior to the Crusades.

But anyway ... don't take my word for it: Listen to Karen Hughes. The Christian conservatives -- many of whom genuinely *are* conservative -- don't have such a hands-off view of the free market. You know, guys like Sam Brownback who want trade sanctions on China for human rights abuses and interventions into Darfur. Hughes wanted to create solidarity with conservative Muslims by drawing a parallel with American conservative family values and Islamic values.

Only it fell fucking flat -- because Hughes can't run away from the economic anarchists in her own party. That's why she was laughed out of her speaking tour of the Mideast.

If you, you know, actually *read* the stuff Osama says, it's all pretty clearly laid out. Islamists despise the Western propping up of the Gulf state royal families -- because these obscenely rich non-achievers (the dead-opposite of a meritocracy) exploit and oppress their own populations -- meanwhile preventing the development of *human* capital and keeping their nations addicted to oil as their only export while they dole out public works projects and sinecures in pittances to the population at large -- the better to maintain control of their regimes.

This is EVERYTHING YOU FUCKING DESPISE about pure Socialism, Wooten. IT IS A WESTERN CREATION.

You should, at the very least, be able to understand a conservative religious person's reading of it as highly unjust and morally wrong.

Karen Hughes seems to be able to. Why can't you?

Bob

Dear little rdw, just as stubborn as he can be, writes: "Liberals are threatened by globalization."

Nope, nothing about "ideology" there, nossir.

"His problem with the West isn't our globalization but the superiority of our culture."

ROFL.... Poor deluded guy. The really sad thing is that is the kind of "analysis" that the Bush administration has used. And boy, we've seen where that has gotten us, haven't we?

"The Middle East was colonized by the Europeans. How humiliating is that?

"Just look at Kyoto. It's a friggin disaster and you know it."

Do we, dear? Thus far, you haven't presented even one shred of evidence that it is.

"They're building huge refineries in India for the EXPORT markets."

Don't you just love how rdw latches on to a single factoid and proceeds to build elaborate fantasies from it?

"That's 100% the result of Kyoto."

No, dear, it's not, but we know how important it is for you to think so.

"You know for a fact China and India are ecological disasters and you know you caused it."

No, dear, we didn't, but we know how important it is for you to think so.

Yup, definitely nothing about "ideology" here.

Yeah, and Christianity has always been about peace, love and understanding.

Surely you are not comparing Chritianity with Islam? You and Rosie? It's so cool the Pope is in Turkey now on an outreach. I especially like the fact he's come close to endorcing EU memberhip. The open-minded French aren't so crazy about it though. All of those brown muslims!

I especially likes the Popes comments of a month ago when he discussed Islam and violence. To demonstrated their peaceful ways they threatened to kill him and murdered several priests and nuns doing missionary work. And the NYTs missed the irony.

It was also interesting yesterday that cartoonist Oliphant of the Globe did a caption ridiculing the Pope. He is the qunitessential liberal pussy. Mr. Oliphant wouldn't dare do such a cartoon on an Islamic cleric nor would the Boston Globe print it if he did. They are the classic PC pussies. Gather 100,000 PC libs in a stadium and you won't find a single spine.

In addition to being left-handed I have a bit of color-blindness. Fortunately when the good Lord takes away in one area he gives in another. In my case it's political insight."

Oh, I'd forgotten this gem. Gurgling...

The good Lord also has a sense of humor, so sue me!

The medieval Christians certainly weren't any less averse to bloodthirsty conquest than the Muslims, who actually ran a pretty tolerant civilization prior to the Crusades.

This has got to be the dumbest thread I'd ever seen. It's now 2006 NOT 906. We're not living in medievil times. You can't compare modern Christianity with 9th century Islam.

This is 2006. Let's deal with the real world.

More rdw goodness, from September, 2005, quoted in its entirety:

The civil war in Iraqi has not yet started and it won't until the government is formed with the Shia and Kurds in control. There is a very small scale civil war being waged with the Sunni killing Shia. It is only smll scale because it is so one sided. The Shia are wisely being patient until they get control of the government and by definition the military. Which is of course still developing but becoming more experienced and professional every day.

The Shia have time on their side and the Saudi's are rightly horrified. They will eventually have the best trained, equipped and experienced military in the region aside from Israel. And they will have some scores to settle.

It is not completely true the shia are not fighting back. They have their own death squads but prefer targeted killing versus the media pleasing mass butchery of the sunni. The sunni are looking for political advantage via the American media. The Shia know that won't happen with Bush and there's plenty of time for them to assume control. Once in control they can use methods consistent with their culture and history.

At this point the option of civil war takes on very different meaning for the Sunni. They would be choosing extermination. The model here is the Kurdish North. The Sunni are very hesitant to attack Kurds for obvious reasons. The Kurds will aggressively return fire. Thus the Kurhish North is peaceful booming. They have security, water and oil. This region will be 2nd only to Israel as the most economically rich and powerful in the middle east. They are attracting immigrants and investment dollars at a rapid pace and will enjoy a comfortable accomodation with the Shia as allies against the Sunni.

The fact is the Sunni in Iraq cannot possibly win and the sooner Iraq is under Shia control the sooner they much choose between peace or extinction.

The more interesting question is what happens in the region after the Shia gain control along with the Kurds. This can only be a disaster for the Saudi's. Even moreso for the Syrians. A rich, vigorious and militarily powerful Democracy is their worst nightmare. If in fact in 2010 some Saudi fanatics were to assassinate a Shia or Kurdish leader it's very likely the Saudi Royal family would be in grave danger.

This government will not be playing sheep.

Dear little rdw, just as cute as ever, writes: "This has got to be the dumbest thread I'd ever seen."

ROFL.... No comment necessary.

And speaking of dumbest ever, I loved this comment of yours from September, 2005: "This war might dribble on for a while but the end is not in doubt"

How's that prediction working out for you, dear heart?

actually *read* the stuff Osama says

I have. He's a religious fanatic. He's not about money. He's about keeping Saudi Arabia clear of ALL infidels AND making Islam the worlds religion. Like so many islamic fanatics he's humiliated by the dominance of the West. Not for what we do but becasue he can't do a thing about it. It's about his lack of power.

rdw:

"Spines?" Tell it to Jon Tester and Jim Webb. Bush made some mealy-mouthed comment about Webb's son, and Webb in so many words told him -- publicly -- to fuck off. ROTFL !

Anyway -- I'm not trying to pretend that Milton Friedman was some kind of unsubtle thinker or cheap demagogue. He wasn't; he was a brilliant man. But all through his career, he did work hard to minimize the effects of what economists call "negative externalities": you know, pollution, unsafe working conditions, the appalling behavior of the obscenely rich. He felt these things were perfectly acceptable prices to pay for the unparalleled levels of freedom of choice bequeathed by a free-market economy.

And, in so doing, he didn't note the direct connections between them.

Now -- like it or not -- many religious folks and traditional conservatives *do*. That's why they freak out at Hollywood and other expressions of the Free Market and try to do non-Invisible Hand-y things like organize boycotts. They recognize the direct connection between our economic system and the immoral conduct that it may not in itself create -- but which it certainly facilitates.

Therefore, free marketeers tend not to be philosophically conservative in the true sense. This is reflected in Europe, where free market advocates are members of the Liberal parties. Classical liberalism in the 19th century meant support for an unfettered marketplace.

So I'm presenting a choice to you, Wooten. A simplifed choice, perhaps -- but a valid one, regardless. You can either believe, like Milton Friedman did, that free markets eventually solve all the problems they create -- or ...

You can believe, like genuine conservatives, that we need a government acting in the name of broad cultural values to act to restrain its excesses.

You can, of course, take a position somewhere in the middle. Most people do.

But these are the poles between which the question operates.

Bob

Dear little rdw, just as amusing as ever, writes: "I have."

No, dear, you haven't, as is obvious for all to see. You really shouldn't claim knowledge when your every post reveals your ignorance.

This is 2006. Let's deal with the real world.

Yeah, and let's keep facts, evidence, and empirical analysis out of it!

More rdw goodness on Iraq, from March, 2006:

"The generals are smartly lowering expectations so if worst case happens it won't be a shock. If this is a civil war it's working to benefit our troops. It's only 9 days but the casualty count in March is less than 1/2 of the prior 12 months." [Emphasis added.]

From that same thread:

"As we speak Americans are worried about a nasty civil war and Iraq collapsing. Yet we have the lowest casualty rate in 2 years. We've had a steady schedule of Iraqi's controlling more territory and taking a much higher profile. If the good news continues we'll have a chicken little moment with the Democrats playing the chicken while GWB announces a 10,000 troop withdrawal."

"These blowhards are the biggest cowards on the planet. There's no shortage of MSM twits ripping GWB nor has there ever been. The problem they have in Iraq is the Iraqi's hate American jornalists. They want the US to stay as long as possible to kill the insurgents. This wold cover the Kurds, most of the Shia, and a portion of the sunni. Those with a vested interest in keeping the insurgency going and chasing America out want American journalists so they can either cut their heads off on TV OR kidnap them for big bucks. Iraq is like Mexico and South America. Kidnapping is major business."

I wonder how the poor guy feels? He's been wrong about everything for the past several years. Think he'll be able to come to terms with his failures? My bet is no, that he'll simply ignore them and continue his fact-free rants.

Bob,

My problem with socialism is that by every measure it's a abomination. The worst butchers in the world have been at the top of socialist regimes. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. are the embodiment of pure evil. Russia remains an evil regime and the Chinese aren't any better.

Even excluding the massive butchery socialism is a disaster as an economic system and it's been proven time and time again. It destroyed the incentive to save and invest and work hard. Looking at the last 100 years the most innovative systems by far are capitalist. We can see in Europe quite clearly the effects of high tax rates and regulation on innovation and growth versus the USA. There's simply no comparison.

I despise socialism 1st for the killing and 2nd because is so unsuccessful. It's a rotten system.

"My problem with socialism is that by every measure it's a abomination."

ROFL.... Then you really shouldn't be living in the U.S., dear heart, since much of what we do is socialist in origin. The rest of your little ideological rant was highly amusing but fact-free, as usual.

continue his fact-free rants.

Paul focus in. 3rd Qtr USA GDP 2.2%. 3rd Qtr French GDP 0.6%.

That's one of our lowest Qtrs in 4 years and it's STILL 3.7x's as fast as France.

These are facts my friend.

Dear heart, I'm afraid that, once again, your little "facts" are completely inconsequential and have nothing to do with, well, anything. Do keep going, though; they are highly entertaining. I'm having a great time mining your earlier threads for all of those predictions you made. Your predictions about the 2006 election are fricking hilarious. I wish I hadn't decided to stay on topic, since you have been amusingly ignorant and wrong for a couple of years now.

Don't you just love how dear little rdw ignores the socialist underpinnings of our society? Sine it doesn't mesh with his ideology, it must simply not exist.

Back on topic, I wonder if we should tell him about the ethnic cleansing that the Kurds are currently engaged in? Yup, just like Utah, ain't it?

By the way, I absolutely loved the tone in that 1:25 PM post. Can't you just see him solemnly intoning those words? How can you not love someone so idiotic?

Somewhat related, from June, 2006: "If the Palestinians insist on firing rockets it gets worse. The last thing they can afford is a 21st century video game war. Israel will crush them with vastly superior firepower."

So how'd that work out for the Israelis, rdw?

A simplifed choice, perhaps -- but a valid one, regardless. You can either believe, like Milton Friedman did, that free markets eventually solve all the problems they create -- or ...

You can believe, like genuine conservatives, that we need a government acting in the name of broad cultural values to act to restrain its excesses.

you can, of course, take a position somewhere in the middle. Most people do.

Too vague. If by restraining excess you think George Clooney should not be entited to make $20M a flick and fly the world in private jets to his Lake Cumo Villa or wherever than I disagree with you. You might think Clooney and Barbara Streisand and Steven Speilbery are grossly overpaid and live too high on the hog but neither put a gun to anyone head and forced payment.

They make what the markets says they should make and spend their money as they see fit. If George want's to put 75,000 miles a year on private jets God bless him. He's not very green but it's his call.

Perhaps Madonna is a better example. She's filthy rich and recently decided to adopt an African child. Ok so it's a bit of a hollywood fad but she's doing a good deed and good for her. Might she be more effective in helping Africa's poor? Perhaps. Do I want some pencil neck coming in and telling her she can't adopt but she can fund an orphanage. NO!

We have a political system to draw the lines as to how far govt can intrude. It's imperfect but it's better here than anywhere else.

rdw:

Why the boilerplate on Socialism? Social *democracy* is a different thing -- and every single advanced nation in the world has some form of a social safety net -- but I surely wasn't advocating some kind of pure, everybody-owns-the-means-of-production Socialism.

In fact, I was arguing the *opposite*. That the West, by enriching a minority of tribally-defined Arab "royalty," have allowed them to create pure Socialist systems for the same purpose that these systems were created in the failed East bloc -- to prop up their oligarchical rule and keep their people powerless.

Now, Wooten ... it obvious that you *haven't* read Osama. You've read the right-o-sphere's gloss on Osama. He's a religious fanatic -- please, tell us all something we don't already know. But try to get beyond that, and all the twisted advocacy for killing innocents which everybody (including most Muslims) finds appalling. Try to read his words and imagine -- as Karen Hughes clearly has -- why his message so strongly resonates in the Muslim world -- even among our putative allies.

If you do that, you find that the key reason is that our Western addiction to oil has superempowered a tiny elite who run welfare states which keep their people uneducated and impoverished (trusting hired foreigners to do better jobs at actually running the economy), so that meanwhile, they can lead lives of unparalleled luxury and indulgence -- quite to the contrary of the dictates of their religion.

While I don't support invading countries that have not attacked us -- had we invaded Saudi Arabia instead and overthrew that corrupt and disgusting monarchy, we'd be heroes in the Islamic world instead of the Great Satan.

But we can't, see -- because we're addicted to oil.

And this is the grotesque hypocrisy that virtually everyone in the Arab/Muslim Middle East loathes about our influence there. Don't have to be a takfiri Salafist fanatic to see it.

Thomas Friedman articulates this quite well, btw.

Bob

since much of what we do is socialist in origin

Not even close and never been close. Jimmy's 70% tax rates seemed like socialism but in fact socialism is the absence of private property. 70% tax rates are a disaster. Socialism is an abomination as has been proven countless times.

rdw:

Well, I'm about to give up on this and move on to another thread (or maybe check out the Pynchon blogs I've been posting on this past week).

You truly don't know how to think in philosophical terms. You boil everything down to meaningless anecdote and miss the connections.

"Too vague?" That was entirely concrete, and fomulated in a compact, schematic way that only a chimapanzee could've missed the point of.

Sigh ... I'm writing some pretty good essays here on the connections between free market advocacy, our support of effectively Socialist regimes in the Mideast, social conservatism and its connection to Islam -- and you're just blowing by all of it.

Despite how much I'm enjoying cranking out these posts, I think I'm just wasting my time atm.

Bob

Dear little rdw, still bent on ignoring reality, writes: "Not even close and never been close."

Yes, dear it is. I know this is difficult for you, dear, but a little history of the United States over the past 100 years or so would prove to be quite enlightening. In particular, pay attention to what the Socialist Party wanted in the early 20th century. Free clue: they got most of what they asked for.

"Jimmy's 70% tax rates seemed like socialism but in fact socialism is the absence of private property."

No, dear, it's not. You really don't know just what "socialism" is, do you? You've simply made shit up again. Tsk, tsk, dear, you really should get out more.

"70% tax rates are a disaster."

Oh my, yes, just look at how terrible things were when we had those high tax rates. LOL.... Poor guy ... on top of your lack of knowledge of economics, politics, and the like, you really don't know anything about history, either.

"Socialism is an abomination as has been proven countless times."

LOL... An "abomination?" Wow....

why his message so strongly resonates in the Muslim world -- even among our putative allies.

It's resonates there for the same reason it resonates here among libs. Osama is about victimhood. Liberals are about victimhood. The Islamic world is humiliated. Iraq's borders were determined by British bureacrats. The Middle Eastern map was not set by Arabs but by Westerners. There isn't a single scientific acheivement form the Islmaic world in 500 years. These are a backwords people and the world knows it.

Osama represented a victory of Islam over the West. They're 1st since the Turks were kicked out of Austria. He uses this inferiority complex to generate hatred as so many despots have done. He has not other message. He has terror and nothing else. You can't possibly care aboiut Arabs or you would have supported GWBs attempts to make Iraq democratic. Libs are openly gleeful Iraq is bloody. That's called celebrating death. You could give a rats ass about poor arabs.

rmck1 wrote: "Despite how much I'm enjoying cranking out these posts, I think I'm just wasting my time."

That depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If your goal is to educate rdw, you're wasting your time. He cannot be reached by any argument from anyone. His mind is firmly closed tight and there is absolutely no way you can change that.

If your goal is to present the information for the others reading this thread or to cement your own understanding of the various issues, then you're not wasting your time.

In any case, look on this thread as a flypaper thread. We're keeping him busy here so that we don't have to deal with him everywhere else.

rdw, still bent on displaying his ignorance, writes: "It's resonates there for the same reason it resonates here among libs."

No, dear, it doesn't, but thanks for confirming that you've never actually read or thought about what Osama bin Laden has written. And that you know nothing about the region, its population, or its history.

"You can't possibly care aboiut Arabs or you would have supported GWBs attempts to make Iraq democratic."

Nice try, dear heart.

"Libs are openly gleeful Iraq is bloody."

No, dear, we're not. A little "I told you so" is inevitable, but nobody likes what is currently going on in Iraq, particularly since the consequences are so devastating to so many people.

"That's called celebrating death."

Since nobody is doing that, I'm afraid that, as usual, you're simply wrong.

"You could give a rats ass about poor arabs."

As compared to you, dear?

By the way, dear heart, if you're detecting "glee" here, it's not because of the situation in Iraq; it's because we're having so much fun exposing you for the idiot that you are. I've really enjoyed mining those other threads for all of those pronouncements of yours over the past year or so, all of which have been rather idiotically wrong, and were demonstrably idiotically wrong at the time you made them!

Well, since unlike rdw I do actually have a life, it's time to run. Take care, everyone. We'll have to do this again in a few months. I'm sure that rdw will have supplied us with another round of memorable quotes by then.

You truly don't know how to think in philosophical terms.

Not true. What I won't do is debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That's for the pencil neck academics. I need to be in the real world to be interested.

You are a true boomer, a legend in your own mind. High tax rates is not socialism. They share with socialism the effect of draining all ambition and thus advancement but it's not close to socialism.

We have an example now in Cuba where some of the housing stock in Havana is literally collapsing. Because Fidel owns the homes the tenants have no incentive to maintain the property. Socialism is so inefficient the govt can't get it done. Thus we have a wreck of a society.

In Europe we still have home ownership so we see smart maintenance. But because high taxes and regulation destroy incentive and innovation European homes are much smaller and with fewer appliances. They simply don't see the same level of wealth creation and dynamism as low tax and less regulated ecomies have.

These are basic, general, obvious facts that we can easily agree on and then take conclusions from. Your academic descriptions have little real world application.

In Europe we still have home ownership so we see smart maintenance. But because high taxes and regulation destroy incentive and innovation European homes are much smaller and with fewer appliances.

What the???

I mean???

How do you???

WHAT THE FUCK???

Fewer appliances? Fewer appliances???

FEWER APPLIANCES?

!!!!!!!!

I can't...I don't....what??? what???

rdw:

Don't you *dare* attempt to tell me what my values are, you fucking free-market nihilist. You can't depise liberals for caring about justice (which you call "victimhood") while *pretending* to give a flying squat about the victims. I'm trying to hold a civil dialogue with you. Keep up your end of the bargain, woudjapleez.

Now -- don't be such an ignorant doofus. The Turks were never *in* Austria. You meant the sections of what are now Eastern Europe, Greece and Italy that were occupied by the Ottoman Empire ("Ottoman Europe"), and which the *Austro-Hungarian Empire* hotly disputed in the latter 19th century and up to the First World War. I've been reading Thomas Pynchon's new historical novel Against The Day, and there happens to be tons of Balkan history in it, so I've been edumacating myself on the subject recently.

One of the things which Bush can't appreciate is that Iran is keenly aware of this technological gap, and that's why they're so insistent on developing not only their own indigenous nuclear industry, but also building their own automobiles and developing their own digital high-tech sector. You absolutely can't have it both ways here, Wooten -- call the Mideast a "backward region" and then bash them for trying to leverage their intellectual capital to create their own industries independent of the West.

It is *you* who really cherishes the belief that Arabs/Muslims are inferior people with crappy morals and no brains, and that's why you hoped that St. George would lead them all on the way of becoming just like Americans. Heh -- remember Iraq Yeaar Zero, the free-market paradise that Cheney's people in the Green Zone tried to create? Remember how hard it fell fucking flat?

Why? Because the Iraqis have their *own* ideas about how their society should proceed and what constitutes social justice. Liberals are more inclined to be respectful of their traditions instead of just spitting on them and trying to toss them aside.

You most manifestly are not the humane ones here, Wooten. You're the assholes with more blood on your hands atm than even Saddam in his final years.

You increased suffering for everybody. Nice job at pretending how much you care about all those violent, terrorist, medieval-hearted A-rabs.

Bob

you really don't know anything about history, either.

I do but in this case history isn't needed. We can look to France and Germany and see how high tax rates kill an economy.

Think about it. Last Qtr was our weakest in 3 years and we still add $286B to GDP (annualized). France and Germany added a combined $20B. That's just pitiful. Higher deficits, higher debt, higher unemployment, much lower growth.

Appliances???

Appliances? What the hell...?

It is *you* who really cherishes the belief that Arabs/Muslims are inferior people with crappy morals and no brains

Not quite. In most cases their brains are superior to yours. Terrorists and their supporters do have crappy morals. Islam is a medievil religion as practiced by the radicals. That would include the folks in Saudi Arabai banning all other religions.

The muslims were in fact in Australia having been defeated some 500 years ago in a famous battle outside Vienna that marked the beginning of the decline of the Ottoman empire. They wer also in France. They're still pissed about all of this.

That's right, boys 'n' girls ... appliances :)

One of my best friends is an Italian who lives in the Piedmonte region in the foothills of the Alps. She lives in a nice old house with every modern convenience save for air conditioners, because first of all, the climate is rather temperate compared to the rest of Italy -- and also because there *is* a general European prejudice against air conditioners. Apparently a lot of Europeans believe that people get sick if they spend too much time in air-conditioned rooms and then go out into the sunshine.

I told her that this was pretty much a myth ...

But in general, there's been a huge increase in the past few years of Italians buying air conditioners and having central HVAC units installed (Rome -- not to mention southern Italy -- can get pretty balmy in the summertime).

But otherwise, she's got a PC, a cellphone, a DVD player and an extensive collection, a washer and dryer, a dishwasher ...

Appliances. Sheesh.

Bob

The muslims were in fact in Australia having been defeated some 500 years ago in a famous battle outside Vienna that

Austria?

Appliances????

What the...???

"Australia," LOL !

You're correct, and the Battle of Vienna directly preceeded the creation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But to speak of kicking "the Ottomans out of Austria" is pretty silly (what were the boundaries of "Austria" in the 17th century?), considering how much direct control they weilded in the Balkans and Greek seaports prior to WW 1.

The Habsburgs preserved Vienna, which was an important European center of culture and commerce. But they hardly drove the Turks out of Europe. That didn't happen until after the Great War.

Bob

Bob,

Europe isn't poor. They have appliances. They don't have as many and they tend to be much smaller. Penetration rated for A/C, Dryers and Microwaves is about half USA levels. The average American home has as many TVs and DVDs as people in it. They have fewer cars and they're so much smaller.

Also, as I've explained before, the real damage isn't what we can see now but what we're going to see. Per Capita income grew at 5.5x's the rate in the USA's 3rd Qtr. The compounding effect is simply going to be devastating. They hate us because we have so much. They haven't seen anything yet.

I'd be curious to know if your friends family will be around 100 years from now. Italy, Spain and Greece suffer an abysmal demographic future. With birth rates of 1.1 they cannot possibly sustain their culture. That says nothing about what happens when more people are over 60 than are working and that's certain to happen.

According to the CIA factbook 19.7% of Italy's population is over 65 and only 13.8% under 14. The population is growing only 0.04% which is due entirely to immigration. Thus the ethnic Italians are already shrinking and will continue to shrink at an increasing rate for at least the next 35 years. Moreover there's nothing to suggest this trend is ending. It keeps getting worse.

The Habsburgs preserved Vienna, which was an important European center of culture and commerce. But they hardly drove the Turks out of Europe. That didn't happen until after the Great War.

Agreed. To the Osams's of the world this was a significant defeat and the end of Islamic expansion. Thus it is remembered with some anger and bitterness. Radical muslims would like nothing better to reverse that outcome and in fact probably will. It will not be the Persians who also suffer low birthrates but Europeans are shrinking and will be replaced.

Wouldn't this mean war between Iran and SA? If so, let's hope it's long and very very destructive. It's just a pity they can't both lose.

Alright, (perhaps) my last post here before I move on to greener postures ...

Most religions tend to be medieval "as practiced by [...] radicals," except if they're, I dunno, Scientology or some New Age UFO cult. There are Christian radicals who want to transform America back to the days of Massachusetts Bay Colony and stone adulterers (seriously -- go google Dominionism and/or Christian Reconstruction). The Amish aren't precisely medieval -- but they *have* renounced nearly all social and technological progress starting from the Industrial Revolution. Religions tend to have cultic aspects that very much consider "the world system" as an evil thing (talk to a Jehovah's Witness). There are Jewish ultra-Orthodox communities that are in some ways similar.

As for the Saudis restricting their citizens to Islam -- well sure, of course we in the West would consider it backward. As we would consider cutting the hands off of thieves or using beheading for capital punishment (interesting that the French only banned guillotine executions in the early 70s).

What's really interesting, though, is to compare Saudi society to Iran. There is one of the world's oldest Jewish communities in Iran, many different ethnicities, and various often ancient religious traditions (Zoroastrianism, the syncretic Ba'hai faith which takes from all major religious traditions). Some of these faiths are repressed, yes -- and sometimes quite brutally. But compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran is literally a paradise of religious pluralism (Syria even moreso).

So the question is -- why are we allies with Saudi Arabia, which has a totally corrupt mockery of an aristocracy/monarchy, while Iran at least has some form of a representative government?

Iran's flavor of "rule of the jurist" Shi'ism -- Khomeneism -- isn't properly-speaking exportable -- even to the Shi'ites in neighboring Iraq (ask Ayatollah Sestani about that one). Saudi Wahabism, conversely, is exported all over the world, and easily morphs into violent jihadist extremism. Notice also that there are virtually zero Shi'ite suicide bombers -- and certainly none directed against civilians (the only Shi'ite suicide bombing I can think of was Hezbollah blowing up all those Marines back in '83 in Lebanon).

I mean really, Wooten -- think about it.

Bob

ceece:

That's what you call a nihilistic sentiment.

Reminds me a little of the Italian Futurists dreaming of a glorious mechanized cataclysm in the years before WW1 ...

Bob

It's just a pity they can't both lose

They can both lose and if it happens most definitely both will lose. The real question is how big can it get. Iran is in a rather tight box. Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan are primarily Sunni Muslim. An islamic holy war between Sunni and Shite will not play to the advantage of Iran. Iran has already had a bloody war with Iraq with two losers.

Just to amplify rdw's point above, isn't it neat how the math works with a 1.1 fertility rate:

8 great-grandparents get 4 grandparents get 2 parents get 1 child.

Then? Ooops, out of time.

Most Westerners read the map of the world like a Broadway marquee: north is top of the bill—America, Britain, Europe, Russia—and the rest dribbles away into a mass of supporting players punctuated by occasional Star Guests: India, China, Australia. Everyone else gets rounded up into groups: “Africa,” “Asia,” “Latin America.”

But if you’re one of the down-page crowd, the center of the world is wherever you happen to be. Take Iran: it doesn’t fit into any of the groups. Indeed, it’s a buffer zone between most of the important ones: to the west, it borders the Arab world; to the northwest, it borders NATO (and, if Turkey ever passes its endless audition, the European Union); to the north, the former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation’s turbulent Caucasus; to the northeast, the Stans—the newly independent states of central Asia; to the east, the old British India, now bifurcated into a Muslim-Hindu nuclear standoff. And its southern shore sits on the central artery that feeds the global economy.

If you divide the world into geographical regions, then, Iran’s neither here nor there. But if you divide it ideologically, the mullahs are ideally positioned at the center of the various provinces of Islam—the Arabs, the Turks, the Stans, and the south Asians. Who better to unite the Muslim world under one inspiring, courageous leadership? If there’s going to be an Islamic superpower, Tehran would seem to be the obvious candidate.

That moment of ascendancy is now upon us. Or as the Daily Telegraph in London reported: “Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.” Hmm. I’m not a professional mullah, so I can’t speak to the theological soundness of the argument, but it seems a religious school in the Holy City of Qom has ruled that “the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to sharia.” Well, there’s a surprise. How do you solve a problem? Like, sharia! It’s the one-stop shop for justifying all your geopolitical objectives.

The bad cop/worse cop routine the mullahs and their hothead President Ahmadinejad are playing in this period of alleged negotiation over Iran’s nuclear program is the best indication of how all negotiations with Iran will go once they’re ready to fly. This is the nuclear version of the NRA bumper sticker: “Guns Don’t Kill People. People Kill People.” Nukes don’t nuke nations. Nations nuke nations. When the Argentine junta seized British sovereign territory in the Falklands, the generals knew that the United Kingdom was a nuclear power, but they also knew that under no conceivable scenario would Her Majesty’s Government drop the big one on Buenos Aires. The Argie generals were able to assume decency on the part of the enemy, which is a useful thing to be able to do.

But in any contretemps with Iran the other party would be foolish to make a similar assumption. That will mean the contretemps will generally be resolved in Iran’s favor. In fact, if one were a Machiavellian mullah, the first thing one would do after acquiring nukes would be to hire some obvious loon like President Ahmaddamatree to front the program. He’s the equivalent of the yobbo in the English pub who says, “Oy, mate, you lookin’ at my bird?” You haven’t given her a glance, or him; you’re at the other end of the bar head down in the Daily Mirror, trying not to catch his eye. You don’t know whether he’s longing to nut you in the face or whether he just gets a kick out of terrifying you into thinking he wants to. But, either way, you just want to get out of the room in one piece. Kooks with nukes is one-way deterrence squared.

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 Iran’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 they’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.

If we’d understood Iran back in 1979, we’d understand better the challenges we face today. Come to that, we might not even be facing them. But, with hindsight, what strikes you about the birth of the Islamic Republic is the near total lack of interest by analysts in that adjective: Islamic. Iran was only the second Islamist state, after Saudi Arabia—and, in selecting as their own qualifying adjective the family name, the House of Saud at least indicated a conventional sense of priorities, as the legions of Saudi princes whoring and gambling in the fleshpots of the West have demonstrated exhaustively. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue—though, as the Royal Family has belatedly discovered vis-à-vis the Islamists, they’re somewhat overdrawn on that front. The difference in Iran is simple: with the mullahs, there are no London escort agencies on retainer to supply blondes only. When they say “Islamic Republic,” they mean it. And refusing to take their words at face value has bedeviled Western strategists for three decades.

Twenty-seven years ago, because Islam didn’t fit into the old cold war template, analysts mostly discounted it. We looked at the map like that Broadway marquee: West and East, the old double act. As with most of the down-page turf, Iran’s significance lay in which half of the act she’d sign on with. To the Left, the shah was a high-profile example of an unsavory U.S. client propped up on traditional he-may-be-a-sonofabitch-but-he’s-our-sonofabitch grounds: in those heady days SAVAK, his secret police, were a household name among Western progressives, and insofar as they took the stern-faced man in the turban seriously, they assured themselves he was a kind of novelty front for the urbane Paris émigré socialists who accompanied him back to Tehran. To the realpolitik Right, the issue was Soviet containment: the shah may be our sonofabitch, but he’d outlived his usefulness, and a weak Iran could prove too tempting an invitation to Moscow to fulfill the oldest of czarist dreams—a warm-water port, not to mention control of the Straits of Hormuz. Very few of us considered the strategic implications of an Islamist victory on its own terms—the notion that Iran was checking the neither-of-the-above box and that that box would prove a far greater threat to the Freeish World than Communism.

But that was always Iran’s plan. 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. At the point of expiry of the Soviet Union in 1991, the peoples of the central Asian republics were for the most part unaware that Iran had even had an “Islamic revolution”; 15 years on, following the proselytizing of thousands of mullahs dispatched to the region by a specially created Iranian government agency, the Stans’ traditionally moderate and in many cases alcoholically lubricated form of Islam is yielding in all but the most remote areas to a fiercer form imported from the south. As the Pentagon has begun to notice, in Iraq Tehran has been quietly duplicating the strategy that delivered southern Lebanon into its control 20 years ago. The degeneration of Baby Assad’s supposedly “secular” Baathist tyranny into full-blown client status and the replacement of Arafat’s depraved “secular” kleptocrat terrorists by Hamas’s even more depraved Islamist terrorists can also be seen as symptoms of Iranification.

So as a geopolitical analyst the ayatollah is not to be disdained. Our failure to understand Iran in the seventies foreshadowed our failure to understand the broader struggle today. As clashes of civilizations go, this one’s between two extremes: on the one hand, a world that has everything it needs to wage decisive war—wealth, armies, industry, technology; on the other, a world that has nothing but pure ideology and plenty of believers. (Its sole resource, oil, would stay in the ground were it not for foreign technology, foreign manpower, and a Western fetishization of domestic environmental aesthetics.)

For this to be a mortal struggle, as the cold war was, the question is: Are they a credible enemy to us?

For a projection of the likely outcome, the question is: Are we a credible enemy to them?

Four years into the “war on terror,” the Bush administration has begun promoting a new formulation: “the long war.” Not a reassuring name. In a short war, put your money on tanks and bombs—our strengths. In a long war, the better bet is will and manpower—their strengths, and our great weakness. Even a loser can win when he’s up against a defeatist. A big chunk of Western civilization, consciously or otherwise, has given the impression that it’s dying to surrender to somebody, anybody. Reasonably enough, Islam figures: Hey, why not us? If you add to the advantages of will and manpower a nuclear capability, the odds shift dramatically.

What, after all, is the issue underpinning every little goofy incident in the news, from those Danish cartoons of Mohammed to recommendations for polygamy by official commissions in Canada to the banning of the English flag in English prisons because it’s an insensitive “crusader” emblem to the introduction of gender-segregated swimming sessions in municipal pools in Puget Sound? In a word, sovereignty. There is no god but Allah, and thus there is no jurisdiction but Allah’s. Ayatollah Khomeini saw himself not as the leader of a geographical polity but as a leader of a communal one: Islam. Once those urbane socialist émigrés were either dead or on the plane back to Paris, Iran’s nominally “temporal” government took the same view, too: its role is not merely to run national highway departments and education ministries but to advance the cause of Islam worldwide.

If you dust off the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, Article One reads: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Iran fails to meet qualification (d), and has never accepted it. The signature act of the new regime was not the usual post-coup bloodletting and summary execution of the shah’s mid-ranking officials but the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by “students” acting with Khomeini’s blessing. Diplomatic missions are recognized as the sovereign territory of that state, and the violation thereof is an act of war. No one in Washington has to fret that Fidel Castro will bomb the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. Even in the event of an actual war, the diplomatic staff of both countries would be allowed to depart.

Yet Iran seized protected persons on U.S. soil and held them prisoner for over a year—ostensibly because Washington was planning to restore the shah. But the shah died and the hostages remained. And, when the deal was eventually done and the hostages were released, the sovereign territory of the United States remained in the hands of the gangster regime. Granted that during the Carter administration the Soviets were gobbling up real estate from Afghanistan to Grenada, it’s significant that in this wretched era the only loss of actual U.S. territory was to the Islamists.

Yet Iran paid no price. They got away with it. For the purposes of comparison, in 1980, when the U.S. hostages in Tehran were in their sixth month of captivity, Iranians opposed to the mullahs seized the Islamic Republic’s embassy in London. After six days of negotiation, Her Majesty’s Government sent SAS commandos into the building and restored it to the control of the regime. In refusing to do the same with the “students” occupying the U.S. embassy, the Islamic Republic was explicitly declaring that it was not as other states.

We expect multilateral human-rights Democrats to be unsatisfactory on assertive nationalism, but if they won’t even stand up for international law, what’s the point? Jimmy Carter should have demanded the same service as Tehran got from the British—the swift resolution of the situation by the host government—and, if none was forthcoming, Washington should have reversed the affront to international order quickly, decisively, and in a sufficiently punitive manner. At hinge moments of history, there are never good and bad options, only bad and much much worse. Our options today are significantly worse because we didn’t take the bad one back then.

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.

Iran’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.

In the latest variation on Marx’s dictum, history repeats itself: first, the unreadable London literary novel; then, the Danish funny pages. But in 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.”

If that’s a little too ferocious, Kofi Annan framed it rather more soothingly: “The offensive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were first published in a European country which has recently acquired a significant Muslim population, and is not yet sure how to adjust to it.”

If you’ve also “recently acquired” a significant Muslim population and you’re not sure how to “adjust” to it, well, here’s the difference: back when my Belgian grandparents emigrated to Canada, the idea was that the immigrants assimilated to the host country. As Kofi and Co. see it, today the host country has to assimilate to the immigrants: if Islamic law forbids representations of the Prophet, then so must Danish law, and French law, and American law. Iran was the progenitor of this rapacious extraterritoriality, and, if we had understood it more clearly a generation ago, we might be in less danger of seeing large tracts of the developed world being subsumed by it today.

Yet instead the West somehow came to believe that, in a region of authoritarian monarchs and kleptocrat dictators, Iran was a comparative beacon of liberty. The British foreign secretary goes to Tehran and hangs with the mullahs and, even though he’s not a practicing Muslim (yet), ostentatiously does that “peace be upon him” thing whenever he mentions the Prophet Mohammed. And where does the kissy-face with the A-list imams get him? Ayatollah Khamenei renewed the fatwa on Rushdie only last year. True, President Bush identified Iran as a member of the axis of evil, but a year later the country was being hailed as a “democracy” by then-deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage and a nation that has seen a “democratic flowering,” as State Department spokesman Richard Boucher put it.

And let’s not forget Bill Clinton’s extraordinary remarks at Davos last year: “Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.” That’s true in the very narrow sense that there’s a certain similarity between his legal strategy and sharia when it comes to adultery and setting up the gals as the fall guys. But it seems Clinton apparently had a more general commonality in mind: “In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.” America’s first black President is beginning to sound like America’s first Islamist ex-president.

Those remarks are as nutty as Gerald Ford’s denial of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe. Iran has an impressive three-decade record of talking the talk and walking the walk—either directly or through client groups like Hezbollah. In 1994, the Argentine Israel Mutual Association was bombed in Buenos Aires. Nearly 100 people died and 250 were injured—the worst massacre of Jewish civilians since the Holocaust. An Argentine court eventually issued warrants for two Iranian diplomats plus Ali Fallahian, former intelligence minister, and Ali Akbar Parvaresh, former education minister and deputy speaker of the Majlis.

Why blow up a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires? Because it’s there. Unlike the Iranian infiltration into Bosnia and Croatia, which helped radicalize not just the local populations but Muslim supporters from Britain and Western Europe, the random slaughter in the Argentine has no strategic value except as a demonstration of muscle and reach.

Anyone who spends half an hour looking at Iranian foreign policy over the last 27 years sees five things:

contempt for the most basic international conventions;
long-reach extraterritoriality;
effective promotion of radical Pan-Islamism;
a willingness to go the extra mile for Jew-killing (unlike, say, Osama);
an all-but-total synchronization between rhetoric and action.
Yet the Europeans remain in denial. Iran was supposedly the Middle Eastern state they could work with. And the chancellors and foreign ministers jetted in to court the mullahs so assiduously that they’re reluctant to give up on the strategy just because a relatively peripheral figure like the, er, head of state is sounding off about Armageddon.

Instead, Western analysts tend to go all Kremlinological. There are, after all, many factions within Iran’s ruling class. What the country’s quick-on-the-nuke president says may not be the final word on the regime’s position. Likewise, what the school of nuclear theologians in Qom says. Likewise, what former president Khatami says. Likewise, what Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, says.

But, given that they’re all in favor of the country having nukes, the point seems somewhat moot. The question then arises, what do they want them for?

By way of illustration, consider the country’s last presidential election. The final round offered a choice between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an alumnus of the U.S. Embassy siege a quarter-century ago, and Hashemi Rafsanjani, head of the Expediency Council, which sounds like an EU foreign policy agency but is, in fact, the body that arbitrates between Iran’s political and religious leaderships. Ahmadinejad is a notorious shoot-from-the-lip apocalyptic hothead who believes in the return of the Twelfth (hidden) Imam and quite possibly that he personally is his designated deputy, and he’s also claimed that when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly last year a mystical halo appeared and bathed him in its aura. Ayatollah Rafsanjani, on the other hand, is one of those famous “moderates.”

What’s the difference between a hothead and a moderate? Well, the extremist Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” while the moderate Rafsanjani has declared that Israel is “the most hideous occurrence in history,” which the Muslim world “will vomit out from its midst” in one blast, because “a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world.” Evidently wiping Israel off the map seems to be one of those rare points of bipartisan consensus in Tehran, the Iranian equivalent of a prescription drug plan for seniors: we’re just arguing over the details.

So the question is: Will they do it?

And the minute you have to ask, you know the answer. If, say, Norway or Ireland acquired nuclear weapons, we might regret the “proliferation,” but we wouldn’t have to contemplate mushroom clouds over neighboring states. In that sense, the civilized world has already lost: to enter into negotiations with a jurisdiction headed by a Holocaust-denying millenarian nut job is, in itself, an act of profound weakness—the first concession, regardless of what weaselly settlement might eventually emerge.

Conversely, a key reason to stop Iran is to demonstrate that we can still muster the will to do so. Instead, the striking characteristic of the long diplomatic dance that brought us to this moment is how September 10th it’s all been. The free world’s delegated negotiators (the European Union) and transnational institutions (the IAEA) have continually given the impression that they’d be content just to boot it down the road to next year or the year after or find some arrangement—this decade’s Oil-for-Food or North Korean deal—that would get them off the hook. If you talk to EU foreign ministers, they’ve already psychologically accepted a nuclear Iran. Indeed, the chief characteristic of the West’s reaction to Iran’s nuclearization has been an enervated fatalism.

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: Can’t be helped. Just the way things are. One hears sophisticated arguments that perhaps the best thing is to let everyone get ’em, and then no one will use them. And if Iran’s head of state happens to threaten to wipe Israel off the map, we should understand that this is a rhetorical stylistic device that’s part of the Persian oral narrative tradition, and it would be a grossly Eurocentric misinterpretation to take it literally.

The fatalists have a point. We may well be headed for a world in which anybody with a few thousand bucks and the right unlisted Asian phone numbers in his Rolodex can get a nuke. But, even so, there are compelling reasons for preventing Iran in particular from going nuclear. Back in his student days at the U.S. embassy, young Mr. Ahmadinejad seized American sovereign territory, and the Americans did nothing. And I would wager that’s still how he looks at the world. And, like Rafsanjani, he would regard, say, Muslim deaths in an obliterated Jerusalem as worthy collateral damage in promoting the greater good of a Jew-free Middle East. The Palestinians and their “right of return” have never been more than a weapon of convenience with which to chastise the West. To assume Tehran would never nuke Israel because a shift in wind direction would contaminate Ramallah is to be as ignorant of history as most Palestinians are: from Yasser Arafat’s uncle, the pro-Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during the British Mandate, to the insurgents in Iraq today, Islamists have never been shy about slaughtering Muslims in pursuit of their strategic goals.

But it doesn’t have to come to that. Go back to that Argentine bombing. It was, in fact, the second major Iranian-sponsored attack in Buenos Aires. The year before, 1993, a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed 29 people and injured hundreds more in an attack on the Israeli Embassy. In the case of the community center bombing, the killer had flown from Lebanon a few days earlier and entered Latin America through the porous tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. Suppose Iran had had a “dirty nuke” shipped to Hezbollah, or even the full-blown thing: Would it have been any less easy to get it into the country? And, if a significant chunk of downtown Buenos Aires were rendered uninhabitable, what would the Argentine government do? Iran can project itself to South America effortlessly, but Argentina can’t project itself to the Middle East at all. It can’t nuke Tehran, and it can’t attack Iran in conventional ways.

So any retaliation would be down to others. Would Washington act? It depends how clear the fingerprints were. If the links back to the mullahs were just a teensy-weensy bit tenuous and murky, how eager would the U.S. be to reciprocate? Bush and Rumsfeld might—but an administration of a more Clinto-Powellite bent? How much pressure would there be for investigations under UN auspices? Perhaps Hans Blix could come out of retirement, and we could have a six-month dance through Security-Council coalition-building, with the secretary of state making a last-minute flight to Khartoum to try to persuade Sudan to switch its vote.

Perhaps it’s unduly pessimistic to write the civilized world automatically into what Osama bin Laden called the “weak horse” role (Islam being the “strong horse”). But, if you were an Iranian “moderate” and you’d watched the West’s reaction to the embassy seizure and the Rushdie murders and Hezbollah terrorism, wouldn’t you be thinking along those lines? I don’t suppose Buenos Aires Jews expect to have their institutions nuked any more than 12 years ago they expected to be blown up in their own city by Iranian-backed suicide bombers. Nukes have gone freelance, and there’s nothing much we can do about that, and sooner or later we’ll see the consequences—in Vancouver or Rotterdam, Glasgow or Atlanta. But, that being so, we owe it to ourselves to take the minimal precautionary step of ending the one regime whose political establishment is explicitly pledged to the nuclear annihilation of neighboring states.

Once again, we 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.

The cost of de-nuking Iran will be high now but significantly higher with every year it’s postponed. The lesson of the Danish cartoons is the clearest reminder that what is at stake here is the credibility of our civilization. Whether or not we end the nuclearization of the Islamic Republic will be an act that defines our time.

A quarter-century ago, there was a minor British pop hit called “Ayatollah, Don’t Khomeini Closer.” If you’re a U.S. diplomat or a British novelist, a Croat Christian or an Argentine Jew, he’s already come way too close. How much closer do you want him to get?

nina:

Did you write that yourself -- or did you crosspost it from some right-wing website?

If you wrote it youreelf -- I'll consider reading it.

If you crossposted it without attribution -- then you're just another mendacious right-wing shill, and you can go fuck yourself.

Bob

"nina" is crossposting a large amount of text in order to try to break the software, looks like.

Man, the attacks just get worse and worse...

nina:

You know, you don't need to read that monstrously self-indugent post to realize that it's pure drivel. I started to skim some parts of it, thinking that it might be, you know, scholarly considering the length -- and sure enough, it's chock-full of puffed-up rhetoric and neocon talking points. Just more dick-sucking neocon-wannabe bullshit -- as if these jackwads hadn't learned their lesson already in Iraq.

First point -- Iran doesn't intend to "annihilate" Israel. That's a fucking urban legend based on a mistranslation and quoted thoroughly out of context. Ahmadinejad was talking about the *demographic pressures* which would eventually render Israel an untenable state, due to the -- suprise, surprise -- higher Arab birth rate. He was talking about questions of state legitimacy, not even hinting at using a nuclear weapon.

Don't you fucking children know when it's time to grow up?

Bob

"If you wrote it yourself -- I'll consider reading it."

He, she, or it, didn't write it. Mark Steyn did, back in April of this year, with the over-the-top title of "Facing Down Iran: Our lives depend on it." It was published in the Manhattan Institute's "City Journal" magazine.

rdw wrote: "I do"

No, dear, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be writing such foolishness.

"but in this case history isn't needed."

Yes, dear, it is, specifically, U.S. history during the time of those high tax rates.

"We can look to France and Germany and see how high tax rates kill an economy."

Dear heart, why are you so bent on ignoring U.S. history? Could it be, perhaps, that you are, as usual, wrong and U.S. history shows this incontrovertibly? Don't bother answering, dear; it's a rhetorical question.

Dear little rdw, just as funny as ever, writes: "I need to be in the real world to be interested."

ROFLMAO.... Oh, the irony.... Dear heart, you are not in the real world; you have never been in the real world; you will never be in the real world. Deal with it.

Hey - what about my Iran-Saudi Arabia war idea? How can you reject this brilliant suggestion so blithely? Cmon, kids...

Poor little rdw, so much time, so little knowledge, writes: "Per Capita income grew at 5.5x's the rate in the USA's 3rd Qtr."

Dear heart, a free clue: to whom did that money go?

cecce wrote: "Hey - what about my Iran-Saudi Arabia war idea? How can you reject this brilliant suggestion so blithely?"

Well, mostly because we're not utter morons. I'm sure that rdw is listening, though. You should check with him.

PaulB:

Thanks. That explains much. I actually took a few moments and read the whole thing; it was kind of engagingly written, in a deeply unserious rhetorical way. I'd compare it to what I've read of Ann Coulter or Jonah Goldberg.

The Manhattan Institute, holy cripes. I had thought they were a tad more august an institution ...

It's also quite obvious why Wooten is such a freak on this guy. The core absurdity of Steyn's argument is that Iranian Shi'ism is non-exportable, and what Iran angles for is just what all nation-states angle for. It's the Sunni extremists who are dreaming of Universal Caliphates and suchlike ...

Bob

ceece:

Futurism produced some pretty cool art. Some of it even museum-worthy.

But as a political doctrine it sucked dick.

Bob

Pale Rider wrote: "Appliances? What the hell...?"

Now, now, let's give the poor chap a break. After all, he hasn't got anything else to say.

So it was Steyn. You could tell from the pop-references I guess. Face it, he outwrites most anybody, right or left: this piece was worth reading for the reference to "Ayatollah, Don't Khomeini Closer" -- ah, memories.

What the???

I mean???

How do you???

WHAT THE FUCK???

Futurism? Futurism????

FUTURISM?

!!!!!!!!

I can't...I don't....what??? what???

ceece:

Of course, only a right-wing asshole would crosspost a piece rivalling in length only the most obnoxious of Chinese character spam without the slightest shred of clue where it came from.

That's what you call rank dishonesty. If Kevin (bless his soul) were paying attention to this thread, he would have instantly deleted that for a copyright violation.

But since you cretins had *no problem* lying to the world about Iraqi WMD, well ...

Bob

Did you mean furniture-making?

funicello?

futtanesca sauce?

fushism?

ceece:

Recall what I said to you when you made your original asinine assertion about the wonders of a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I said it reminded me of the Italian Futurists, dreaming of the glories of mechanized total warfare -- only a few years before those dreams were realized in the trenches of Flanders and Ypres.

Futurism was Italian Fascism in utero. It also, quite explicitly, took influences from Russian Nihilism.

So anybody who dreamily drools of warfare without paying the slightest shred of attention to the INEVITABLE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES gets put in the box with those idiot Italians, masturbating over the glories of action, action, action manifested by clangorous industrial accidents.

Check the Wikipedia entry.

Bob

rmck1 wrote: "If Kevin (bless his soul) were paying attention to this thread, he would have instantly deleted that for a copyright violation."

Probably not. Kevin has rarely played net cop on any of these threads. In any case, nina posted it to most, if not all, of the currently active threads, so we'll see if Kevin deletes it here or elsewhere.

Just read the pieces Kevin blogged. Thanks to Kevin for linking to it - it's Awesome. Nevermind that this guy is "not speaking for the Saudis". If only it were true that he did. This is particularly good:

"Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere."

I think Kevin points out that this is likely impossible, but how sweet would it be if they could do it. Broke mullahs and 50c gasoline?

And this is a piece from someone who basically, as Kevin puts us is threatening us? We should withdraw immediately, just for that.

PaulB:

One of the very few times Kevin *does* play net.cop is over copyright issues. But unless people make it explicit pretty early on in a new threat that this is, indeed, a full-length Mark Steyn piece, odds are very good that he'll miss it.

Kevin rarely reads past the first three screens in any given thread.

Bob

Also from that piece:

"To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks — it could spark a regional war."

And yes, they are threatening us.

Bob, you're totally confused as usual. If I bought you a dictionary, would you please use it?

As for the dream of 50¢ gasoline, well, a few bombs in the right place in either country and, boom, there goes that 50¢ gasoline. Try $5.00 instead.

Appliances?

OH, now I get it.

Wait...

Nope. No, I don't get it.

APPLIANCES???????

ceece:

What, exactly, do you believe I'm confused about?

A regional war in the Mideast would be an unequivocal disaster for everybody.

Sunni brigades to, say, defend Anbar from the predations of rogue Shi'ite militias might not be such a bad idea in themselves, however.

Boosting oil production and cutting prices would only stimulate demand, which would quickly get absorbed, only to make cutting back later that much more politically difficult. This is kind of why OPEC was created in the first place ...

Bob

Yea but futurism, that makes total sense. That and nihilism. Don't forget nihilism.

You're overthinking it, P.R. We have more appliances, therefore we win. It's really quite simple.

Don't you just love the guy? So simplistic, so wholly ignorant.... I loved the bit about per capita income growth, in particular.

cecce:

It was a metaphor. An association. An "it kind of reminds me of ... " No more nor less absurd than the idea of advocating a regional war in the Mideast between Shi'ite and Sunni.

Nihilistic? You bet. In spades.

Bob

Nihilists! Jesus. Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism,
Dude, at least it's an ethos.
And let's also not forget--let's not
forget, Dude--that keeping wildlife,
an amphibious rodent, for uh,
domestic, you know, within the city--
that isn't legal either.

reina:

LOL !

John Goodman's GREATEST ROLE EVER :)

Well, except maybe for the travelling insurance salesman in Barton Fink ...

"I'll show YOU the life of the mind!"

I fucking adore the Coen bros ...

Bob

reina:

"This isn't Nam, Smokey. There are RULES!"

Bob

reina:

"Two thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax."

Okay okay, I'll stop now :)

Bob

Oh well, maybe the Iranians will just kill themselves instead. Here's hoping:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/822312.stm (old item)

"The report says there are up to two-million drug addicts, some of them schoolchildren, with an estimated five tonnes of narcotics consumed every day in the capital, Tehran. Prostitution is also said to be sharply increasing, along with divorce rates and suicides. The report comes from Mohammad Ali Zam, the head of Tehran's cultural and artistic affairs, who is seen as an influential figure..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2563413.stm

Then there is the news that the Iranian fertility rate is already at sub-replacement level. Which I guess is a world-record for a developing country.

PaulB,

Loved him from the minute he first showed up. Very early on, I figured out which Navy supply ship he served on in the 1970s and pointed him to the actual website where they were looking for former sailors to register--don't know if Wooten ever did.

He's a blithering idiot, but he's a harmless blithering idiot. The Republican Party is built around these guys--they don't have money but they vote mindlessly and they "believe" in the central tenets of the party as they are stated but not practiced.

If a Republican bigwig ever shook hands with Wooten, the bigwig would roll his eyes afterwards and reach for the Purell.

why are we allies with Saudi Arabia, which has a totally corrupt mockery of an aristocracy/monarchy, while Iran at least has some form of a representative government?

1st off, GWB isn't the guy who decided we're buds with the Sauds. It's a long standing policy. I have many problems with it and would support a change under the right circumstances. Timing is important. We don't need to solve all of the worlds problems at once.

The Iranians are more dangerous. I would have supported an invasion on day four of the hostage crises. That it went 444 days is the worst Presidential decision of my lifetime. Iran has been actively suporting terrorism outside it's borders since 1979 and should have been put out of business then. The Saudi govt does not support terrorism and more than th Pakistani govt. The problem in each place is the rule of law and authority of the President/King are limited. Wealthy Saudi princes operate independently as do many govt officials in Pakistan. We have exactly the opposite in Iran whre your representative govt is a sham and the power is in the hands of the ruling Mullahs.

BTW: I don't buy and have never bought the theory
The Saudi's have us over a barrel due to Oil. Energy represents about 3% of the economy and if tomorrow SA stopped exporting Oil to the US we'd adjust rather quickly substituting natural gas or coal with some conservation.

If SA stopped all exports we'd see a fairly sharp rise in oil prices followed by massive investment in alternatives and conservation. Any recession would be short term to the US but long term for the oil producers. One of the more interesting development in US energy policy is the major investment in ethanol. It is expected by 2012, or possibly 2010, 10% of gasoline demand will be net by ethanol. The expansion of the Tar Sands as well as a series of small to medium sized discoveries for oil and natural gas in the gulf, in texas, along the rockies and off the coasts suggests the US could become independent of Non-North American imports fairly quickly.

If you are looking for a vote to get tough with all thug regimes AND energy independence you've got mine.

cecce:

And all of this -- while pretty horrible for the Iranian people -- testifies to a country not exactly in the deathgrip of fanatical Muslim ascetics ...

The flipside of this is that there's more homosexuality and general sexual freedom than in any other Mideast Muslim state -- and also more artistic ferment. Call these things decadent if you'd like -- but they're also the hallmarks of modernity -- and a sure sign, contra Steyn, of the mullahs' waning influence.

Bob

Pale Rider wrote: "He's a blithering idiot, but he's a harmless blithering idiot."

Yup, and my god, the fantasies that guy can concoct. Whole tapestries based on a single thread. He really is in a class by himself.

Like I said, here's hoping. But hope is not a strategy. Now, with some Imam-on-Mullah action in a Iran-SA war, added to the mix, perhaps it could grease the skids a little.

rdw:

This is disingenuous. Of course the Saudi regime is going to repudiate takfir -- the Sunni doctrine of killing apostate Muslims and deposing apostate Muslim regimes -- because it poses a grave danger to itself. But Saudi Arabia *does* export fundamentalist Wahabism to as many corners of the globe as it can. The process of education in a Wahabi madrassa lends itself very easily to being bent by local ideologues into a doctrine supporting murderous extremism.

Note also that Iran considers Sunni takfir an extreme threat to itself as well -- and even moreso as Sunni takfiris consider all Shi'ites apostates. What Iran exports are rather more disciplined Iran-trained Hezbollah fighters. This is in no way equivalent to freelance al Qaeda operatives who are growing increasingly decentralized and present a much graver threat to the West than Hezbollah ever has a prayer of doing. Iran wasn't at all behind the Western bombings we've seen post 9/11. In all cases, they were Sunni extremists, most educated in Wahabi madrassahs -- and many, doubtless, with Saudi funding.

Since the Shi'ites represent less than 20% of the world's Muslims, Iran is under no illusion of setting up a Universal Caliphate. That's a dream of Osama and his takfiri Salafist cohort -- and something rejected by every majority Muslim regime on earth -- because that purist doctrine tolerates no deviance.

Islam, however, has a huge variety of different interpretations -- especially among Sunnis, because every imam is more-or-less free to pick and choose hadiths and doctrinal interpretations. A strict Salafist takfir regime would be a nightmare for most Muslims. Even the slightly less extreme Saudi Wahabis make life hell for their Shi'ite minority.

Bob

rdw wrote: "1st off, GWB isn't the guy who decided we're buds with the Sauds. It's a long standing policy."

ROFL.... Gee, rdw, I thought you said that Bush was changing the world? That he was tough? That he didn't listen to polls or to what other people, other presidents, other countries said? If we're in bed with Saudi Arabia, dear, it's because Bush wants us to be there. Of course, if you're calling Bush a wimp, well....

"I have many problems with it and would support a change under the right circumstances. Timing is important. We don't need to solve all of the worlds problems at once."

ROFL... Gee, I wonder just which of the world's problems we've solved under Bush's firm guidance?

"The Iranians are more dangerous."

Are they, dear? I thought you just got through saying that the Saudis would kick their ass? That Iran has a weak and poorly trained military? That they are on the verge of economic collapse?

"The Saudi govt does not support terrorism"

LOL.... Dear heart, you really shouldn't display your ignorance like this. It just makes our job all too easy.

"and more than th Pakistani govt."

ROFLMAO... Q.E.D. Hmm... do you suppose that dear little rdw really is this ignorant of what and who Pakistan and Saudi Arabia support, both covertly and overtly

"The problem in each place is the rule of law"

LOL.... Omigod.... What can anyone possibly say to this?

"BTW: I don't buy and have never bought the theory the Saudi's have us over a barrel due to Oil."

Yes, dear, but that's because you're an ignorant fool.

"Energy represents about 3% of the economy"

Making shit up again, dear, or do you actually have a source for that figure? And have you considered just how critical that 3% really is? And what would happen to the other 97% if that 3% disappeared?

"and if tomorrow SA stopped exporting Oil to the US we'd adjust rather quickly substituting natural gas or coal with some conservation."

LOL.... Yeah, you definitely cannot talk to this guy. He just doesn't know enough to know how truly ignorant he really is.

"If SA stopped all exports we'd see a fairly sharp rise in oil prices followed by massive investment in alternatives"

Which would pay off in 20 years or so.

"and conservation."

Which we should be doing now, anyway. In any case, we cannot conserve enough to make up that kind of difference.

"Any recession would be short term to the US"

That depends, dear heart, on a variety of factors. If the energy shortage were prolonged, so would be its effects.

"One of the more interesting development in US energy policy is the major investment in ethanol."

An investment that, depending on what kind of ethanol you're talking about, takes more energy to make than it provides as an end product. Yeah, that will help....

"suggests the US could become independent of Non-North American imports fairly quickly."

ROFL.... My goodness, he doesn't have a clue about energy, either, does he? He really doesn't know anything!

"If you are looking for a vote to get tough with all thug regimes AND energy independence you've got mine."

Maybe you should speak to St. Bush, then, dear? Seeing as how he's your hero and all?

Ahmadinejad was talking about the *demographic pressures* which would eventually render Israel an untenable state, due to the -- suprise, surprise -- higher Arab birth rate. He was talking about questions of state legitimacy, not even hinting at using a nuclear weapon.

Actually he's threatened Israel repeatedly but he won't do anything. Israel would absolutely destroy Iran 1st. Demographics have nothing to do with the whackjob PM. Iranians are Persians not Arabs and they are also below replacement levels.

Iran can only support terrorism. They have no power of their own nor will they. Even if they were to get a bomb the rest in the region would immediately follow. Iran's nuclear power is intended as leverage against Europe, not the US or Israel.

cecce:

It wouldn't remain an Iran/SA war for long. First, the initial battlefield would be in Iraq. Then, it would pull Egypt and Syria in -- and even potentially Jordan. If it became a full-bore war between Shia and Sunni dominance, it would require the total annihilation of Iran -- and Iranians are tough bastards that withstood 10 years of pounding by Saddam's much better-equipped armies.

The fight would completely dislocate the oil coming out of the Gulf of Hormuz, which would have a grave effect on the global economy. Our navy would have to engage, and we'd lose a number of ships to Sunburns and other guided cruise missles that currently our PHALANX offers no decent defense for. If we got involved on either side, we can forget about Iraq as a state -- and possibly Saudi Arabia, too, as crack Hezbollah fighters would be committing all kinds of sabatage to Saudi oil infrastructure. Also, Iran has a sizable air force. I'd bet on Saudi Arabia in a pinch, but not with the greatest of confidence.

It would be total war in a way that would do extreme damage to our alliances and jeopardize Westerners around the world. It really isn't the sort of thing that should be expressed in an idle wish ...

And that's what I meant by my Futurism analogy. They wished for WW1. They got it.

Ouch.

Bob

While we're in this vein of wishful thinking, I just remembered this one, from Asian Times:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK21Ak01.html

A nation is never beaten until it sells its women, indeed.

"These distasteful facts bear directly upon Iran's national decline, and the impulses that push the Iranian leadership toward strategic flight forward. Iran's plunging birth rate, I observed in essays past, will burden the country with an elderly population proportionately as large as Western Europe's within a generation, just at the point at which this impoverished country will have ceased to export oil. By 2030, Iranian society will collapse."

"Iranians already behave like a defeated people...
The proliferation of Iranian prostitutes in Western Europe as well as the Arab world helps explain the country's population trends. The European Commission's most comprehensive surveys of human trafficking found that Iranian women made up 10-15% of the prostitutes working in Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy."

(giggles) you said "crack Hezbollah fighters"

Anyway, don't ever accuse me of not looking on the bright side of life. If the Asian times guy is right we get both a beaten enemy AND Persian whores. Everyone wins!

This is in no way equivalent to freelance al Qaeda operatives who are growing increasingly decentralized and present a much graver threat to the West than Hezbollah ever has a prayer of doing

Hezbollah are terrorist and I would dispute your opinion they are less dangerous. All terrorist are dangerous and because they target innocents must be condemned and destroyed. Terrorism can never be rewarded. The dancing with Arafat has been a total disaster most of all for the Palestinian people.

I don't dispute your comments regarding the Saudis exporting religious extremism and said I would support change. But tell me why it's so obvious to you and not to GWB, Clinton, GHWB, Reagan, Carter, etc.? I don't even buy the economic argument as a reason to say neutral. You want to get a petition going to advocate regime change in SA I'll sign it.

rdw:

Except that's more Mark Steyn bullshit. The vast majority of Muslims in Europe are Sunni, from former European colonies. Iranian expats (with the exception of the prostitution situation, which I'll take at face value because I respect the Asian Times) tend to cluster in cities and, like Iraqi expats, a lot of them are post-Revolutionary brain drain, and so tend to be highly educated. Entirely different from South Asian and North Arican Muslim immigrants in Europe who are overwhelmingly Sunni and overwhelmingly poor.

While there's an extremist problem, it comes from Sunni takfir -- not from Iran.

Bob

Speaking of looking on the bright side, rmck1 reminds me of Pontius Pilate:

"this man wanks highly in Wome. He commands a qwack legion."

rdw:

You need to stop conflating Sunni and Shi'ite. What we need to do is to get the Shi'ite to recognize what a grave threat Sunni religious imperialism represents to *all* of Islam -- but especially to the minority Shi'ites in the world.

That's the long-term strategic key to this situation. Treating them the same -- as if trained military fighters are the same thing as suicide bombers -- is just madness.

ceece:

Ask Israeli Merkava tank commanders how much they snickered at their Hezbollah opponents in south Lebanon as they popped out of their hidey-holes and bored through their armor with new-issue Russian antitank weapons ...

The Israeli ground forces sure as fuck learned how to respect them as warriors.

Bob

and a sure sign, contra Steyn, of the mullahs' waning influence.

Except it isn't. The mullahs have never been popular with the population or much listened to by them. Which is true in almost all totalarian states. The ruling Mullahs have absolute control and will take the country where they wish it to go. They get to vote for the President but only after they vote 1st.

Lame, rmck1, Hez in Lebanon were defending their own territory. Territory they have controlled and spent a decade or so fortifying. They have nothing of the sort in the Gulf.

That's the long-term strategic key to this situation. Treating them the same -- as if trained military fighters are the same thing as suicide bombers -- is just madness.

Terrorist are ALL the same. Hezbollah does use suicide bombers, they don't wear uniforms and they almost always hide behind kids or among families when they fire. Further they aim for kids whenever possible. They're cowards.

As far as the distinction between Sunni and Shite it does not matter. What matters is how they deal with the US and our allies, especially Israel.

Btw, the sharp distinctions between the Shiite leadership of Iran and Sunni extremists elsewhere is mostly a figment of rmck1's imagination. They support Hamas, for example, and have long been suspected of having relations with Al Qaeda. See, for example, this one from Al Jazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=21223

Interestingly enough, AJ also reports that the Iranian president has said Israel is a "tumor" that should be "wiped off the map". I guess they have language problems, too, huh, rmck1?

Hamas (hearts) Iran

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4890

TEHRAN, Dec 15 (Reuters) - Palestinian militant group Hamas will step up its attacks on Israeli targets if the Jewish state attacks its key ally in the region, Iran, Hamas chief-in-exile Khaled Meshaal said on Thursday.

rmck1 just shit his diapers. Sunni and sheat extremists supporting each other? Being "key allies". Unpossible!

ceece:

The Israeli Army, after a decade or more of occupation, didn't know that terrain almost as well? It's a fair point; you always give turf defenders an advantage. But it still undercuts the sterotype of Hezbollah as crazed fanatic suicide bombers. They proved in that war to be highly disciplined fighters with sophisticated command and control -- and shocked the Israelis by doing so.

rdw:

You can't have it both ways here. You can't claim on the one hand that nobody listens to the mullahs and that the mullahs have absolute power. That's just absurd; if the mullahs had absolute power the way Saddam had absolute power, then the mullahs could damn well enforce their morality restrictions on the population, the way Saddam managed to radio-control virtually all aspects of Iraqi life.

Power in Iran is rather uniquely diversified and spread around a wide variety of groups. This is why Iranian society, far from being "radical," is actually, as far as governing goes, quite conservative. It's very difficult to make quick decisions. It's not merely the Guardian Council; it's also the Expediency Council and a number of other bodies, including Parliament. There's also an extremely strong influnce by their economic elite which the mullahs also have to defer to. And this is a main reason why you have such a sclerotic, unresponsive, conservative government with little power to enforce Islamic social custom on its people ...

Bob

Except that's more Mark Steyn bullshit

I've never seen any of Steyns facts disputed snd his analysis is entirely logical. One of his 'estimates' which seems to be common is that as many as 10% of the Muslim population is extremist and as much as 50% supports the extremists. Since there are over 1.2B Muslims that's 120M dangerous extremists. No matter what the number it's quite high and Europe is in grave danger. Most of the 9/11 were Saudi and many lived in Europe for a period including Atta.

Just in France there are approximately 5,5M muslims and judging from the regular car-b-ques and attacks on police they could very well have 550,000 extremists. A great many areas are no-go for the French police and it's rather obvious demographic factors will cause those regions to expand rather quickly.

I haven't read America alone but I suspect his prediction is Eurabia is all but inevitable and the way it happens is these islands under islamic control will grow, spread and connect until major parts of Europe are under Islamic law, if only in practice.

Steyn is a fabulous wordsmith and a joy to read.

ceece:

Don't be such a dimbulb. Obviously Tehran is going to fund resistance groups in Israel. It's called "the enemy of my enemy," and it's a hallowed tradition in the Mideast.

You probably also noted all of Osama's attempts to turn the war in Iraq into a matter for the Umma -- the entire body of Muslims -- to resist the Crusader occupier. This is standard issue, whether it's Saddam preaching pan-Arab unity or a religious figure attempting to unite divergent sects against a common opponent.

The question is -- what happens after the American leave? You think Saudi Arabia is going to lighten up on its Shi'ites? You think Iraqi Shi'ites are going to stop rounding up Sunni and drilling their heads with Craftsman power tools? You think Sunni jihadis are going to stop bombing Shi'ite slums?

Don't be such a superficial thinker. Try to see the larger strategic picture ....

Bob

Steyn is a joy to read, as opposed to shit-for-brains rmck1.

You can't claim on the one hand that nobody listens to the mullahs and that the mullahs have absolute power

Sure I can. I'm not suggesting Iran has the same freedoms as the USA but the mullahs are not micro-managing the daily lives of the people. Our problems, the worlds problems with Iran are it's foreign policy and export of terror. On this they have total and absolute control. This is no democracy. The mullahs make the big decisions. They don't bother as much with the day to day stuff.

The mullahs have never been popular with the population or much listened to by them. Which is true in almost all totalarian states. The ruling Mullahs have absolute control and will take the country where they wish it to go. They get to vote for the President but only after they vote 1st.
Posted by: rdw

Well, you're take on the mullahs seems contradictory at best. I'm inclined to give more weight to Jaun Cole's assessment which, if nothing else, has more internal consistency. To say nothing of his epxertise in the field:

What is really going on here is a ratcheting war of rhetoric. The Iranian hard liners are down to a popularity rating in Iran of about 15%. They are using their challenge to the Bush administration over their perfectly legal civilian nuclear energy research program as a way of enhancing their nationalist credentials in Iran.

Likewise, Bush is trying to shore up his base, which is desperately unhappy with the Iraq situation, by rattling sabres at Iran. Bush's poll numbers are so low, often in the mid-30s, that he must have lost part of his base to produce this result. Iran is a great deus ex machina for Bush. Rally around the flag yet again.

Power in Iran is rather uniquely diversified and spread around a wide variety of groups

Ultimate power resides at the top. The mullahs have final say and can over-rule anything or everything.

rdw:

Good arguments consist of more than pleasing rhetoric. Many of Steyn's fundamental facts are plainly wrong.

You yourself think that the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite are trivial -- no doubt egged on by Steyn's baleful influence.

Good thing you're not at the table with James Baker and Lee Hamilton ...

You can bet your last silver dollar James Baker knows the difference.

Bob

How about Ed Meese or Rudy Giuliani? Will you bet your last silver dollar they know the difference?

ceece:

And, of course, schoolyard-level nyah nyah rhetoric is the most pleasing to read of all :)

Unless, of course, you'd prefer to be taken seriously.

Bob

I'm inclined to give more weight to Jaun Cole's assessment

Cole is a twit but nothing here disputes the fact the mullahs call the shots and have total authority.

I haven't heard any saber rattling regarding Iran nor do I expect to hear it. In fact the libs are more likely to bitch GWB has deferred too much of the process to the EU and UN.

Many of Steyn's fundamental facts are plainly wrong.

I read a lot of Steyn and I've never seen any of his facts disputed. Could you name just one of his facts which are fundamentally wrong.

Spock:

Definitely not.

One of the things I most admired about Bush 1 was when, at the behest of James Baker, he threatened withholding $3 billion worth of loan guarantees to Israel if they were going to use the money to continue to build settlements in the Occupied Territories.

James Baker -- oilman though he may be -- seems to have genuine sympathy for and knowledge of Arabs and Arab cultures. Not a big surprise to me that one of the trial balloons floated from the commission is negotiations with Iran and Syria.

Bob

Too bad then, Bob. In addition to James Baker, the Iraq Study Group's Republican members are:

Sandra Day O'Connor, former Supreme Court Justice

Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State

Edwin Meese III, former US Attorney General

Alan K. Simpson, former Wyoming Senator

NOTE 1: former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani was originally a member but resigned on May 24, 2006, stating in a letter to co-chair Baker "my previous time commitments do not permit me the full and active participation that the Iraq Study Group deserves." He was replaced by Meese (who will be celebrating his 75th birthday tomorrow ; )

NOTE 2: Former Director of Central Intelligence Robert M. Gates was also a member of the panel until he was replaced by Lawrence Eagleburger on November 10, 2006. Gates resigned because he was nominated as U.S. Secretary of Defense on November 8, 2006, replacing Donald Rumsfeld. You do know know Donald Rumsfeld is, right?

rdw, your assertions so far have only your reputation to support them, and your personal dislike of Juan Cole does nothing to repudiate his bonafides:

Cole has personal and professional experience in the Middle East and South Asia having lived for six years in the Arab world, and another two and a half in South Asia. He worked as a newspaper reporter in Beirut, Lebanon in the late 1970s and lived in Cairo, Egypt. He has continued to visit the region in the past 15 years, as stated in his blog, in order to keep in touch with the "pulse of opinion and changing local views." Cole is fluent in modern standard and colloquial Arabic, Urdu and Persian, and has a command of Turkish.

No saber rattling over the last six months about Iran? Huh, so all the talk about their centrifuges and ability to create a nuclear bomb was... factual?

rdw:

Look -- you don't know jack about the Iranian government. Nothing. Squat.

And assertions aren't arguments.

Repeating Steyn talking points in contradiction of fact while attempting to maintain that you're never seen Steyn's facts disputed is just flat-out obstinancy.

Unlike some trolls here, I don't bury my opponents in wikipedia or other sources. But you could goddamn google it yourself.

The "mad mullahs" is a fucking sui generis creation of the right-wing blogosphere.

Bob

You yourself think that the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite are trivial -- no doubt egged on by Steyn's baleful influence.

I think the differences between the two are trivial in terms of US foreign policy. I tihnk the differences between Sunni and Buddha are trivial as well. We have a foreign policy based on our values and it should treat all the same.

I do think the differences between Sunni, Shite and Kurd are critical within Iraq but that doesn't mean we have different policies for each.

I don't recall Steyn making many distinctions between the two. His most salient characteristic is radical islam is a stain on humanity and must be defeated. They will not change. Either they kill us or we kill them.

What do you have against Wikipedia, Bob? If it's wrong, even someone like YOU can easily correct it.

Cyntax, you've got First Troll Watch. I'm leaving the helm for the moment.

Not ducking out -- I'm actually enjoying this muchly -- but I've got a number of things I need to do which can't be put off any longer.

rdw and ceece -- fun debating with you. I'll catch you mugs on the flipside.

Over and out,

Bob

Spock:

I have nothing against Wikipedia -- provided you're aware that it's not always the last word. But by and large, it's quite informative.

I *do*, however, have an issue with people who merely dump huge blocks of text from it in a debate. We have a name for them here:

Wikipidiots :)

Debate should be primarily driven by well-structured argument. Anybody can quote a source -- but that's often not a vouchsafe for its appropriateness in context.

Anyway, gotta run ...

Bob

I do think the differences between Sunni, Shite and Kurd are critical within Iraq but that doesn't mean we have different policies for each.

But not understanding the differences means miscalculating the outcomes of the foreign policy. For example, thinking we'd be greeted with flowers and as liberators can at least in part be attributed to not paying enough attention to those differences between Sunni and Shia.

Bob,

I'll take over for a spell, but the end of the day is coming and there's beer to be drunk.

: )

No saber rattling over the last six months about Iran? Huh, so all the talk about their centrifuges and ability to create a nuclear bomb was... factual?

By saber rattling I understood threats from high US officials to take aggressive military action against Iran. I never heard any of that. I've heard complaints GWB is letting France, Germany and the UK do it all.

I am guessing the claim about their ability to manufacture a bomb was factual since it was they who were making it.

BTW: I'm not troubled by a nuclear armed Iran. It's not a problem for the US or Israel. It's a problem for the Sunni and Europe. Let them deal with it.

at least in part be attributed to not paying enough attention to those differences between Sunni and Shia

It had nothing to do with it. We didn't uderstand how utterly destroyed Iraqi civil society had become under Saddam and his sons. Nor did we appreciate the level of destruction to the infrastruction by the decade of sanctions and typical Saddam mismanagement.

rdw, actually what Iran said and what got reported weren't quite in line. It's a bit like when President Ahmadinejad was supposed to have said they wanted wipe Israel of the map:

Despite all the sloppy and inaccurate headlines about Iran "going nuclear," the fact is that all President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday was that it had enriched uranium to a measely 3.5 percent, using a bank of 180 centrifuges hooked up so that they "cascade."

The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180. Iran is a good ten years away from having a bomb, and since its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral, you have to wonder if they will ever have a bomb.

Part of the problem that we (as Westerners) seem to face with Iran is a surplus of bad information and dearth of accurate reporting.

It had nothing to do with it. We didn't uderstand how utterly destroyed Iraqi civil society had become under Saddam and his sons.

I think it's a lot like the problems we faced with Croatians and Serbians where a totalitarian ruler had kept ethnic strife under control. A better understanding on the part of the adiminstration of what the variables were, a better appreciation for nuance would have helped immeasurably. But an honest and accurate airing of what the dangers and obstacles were going in probably would have kept us out of Iraq in the first place.

Iran is a good ten years away from having a bomb, and since its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral, you have to wonder if they will ever have a bomb.

OK help me out here. They're working toward a bomb but they don't want one? Do I have that right? They don't allow inspectors because they like playing games with the UN and EU. You know they don't want a bomb and it's everyone else who is confused.

Again, I don't care.

If I lived in Tehran and those whackjobs got or pretend to have a bomb I'd emigrate. Anything bad happens to Israel Tehran is a parking lot.

rmck1, you can't have it both ways. You can't both claim that Iran is no threat and the only thing to worry about is Sunni extremist terrorism and at the same time claim that OF COURSE Iran will support Sunni extremist groups. One negates the other.

As for the "shit-for-brains" comment, I can't claim authorship there (someone else posting under my handle). Shit happens.

never seen Steyn's facts disputed is just flat-out obstinancy.

Not at all. Mark has been around for quite some time and it prolific to say the least writing many regular columns for several large newspapers in the USA, Canada, the UK, Israel and Australia. Then thre are the magazine articles, books and regular radio appearances. He's much hated on the left and any record of playing with the facts would be well known. This guy is no Dan Rather.

If you are going to call a guy a lair you should have the decency of an example.

Well rdw, I never said only I understand. And I was pointing out that Ahmadinejad had said they had enriched uranium, instead of that they were trying to make a bomb. Your lack of interest in these distinctions belies any claims you might make about understanding Iran or its government, but you had expressed a preference for a black and white (fer us or agin us) type foreign policy:

I think the differences between the two are trivial in terms of US foreign policy. I tihnk the differences between Sunni and Buddha are trivial as well. We have a foreign policy based on our values and it should treat all the same.

So really it's not surprising to hear you say this all irrelevant. But for my money, it's exactly that kind of shoot from the hip thinking that got us into the mess we're in now.

Ah well, it's beer thirty. Catch you on the flip side.

Whether Iran developes a nuclear weapon or not, there is not a damn thing we can do about it. Our military is busted, our soldiers are done, and though a few of the right wing of the soldiers all "Hoo-ahh, once more to the sand pit!" there is still more who say, "Oh sh*T, I'm done, let me out!"
Our military is going to need ten years to rebuild itself, which oddly enough is the same timeline for Iran to pop a nuke off for testing.
Bush blew it, and now there is nothing to do but hope the next president undoes the mess baby Bush has made.
In the mean time, Iran will decide whether or not she will build a nuke...all we can do to affect that decision is *hope* that they decide not too.

Your lack of interest in these distinctions belies any claims you might make about understanding Iran or its government

OK, help me out here. Iran keeps on playing games with the inspectors and has announced they've enriched uranium. Why would they do that if not to give the impression of working toward the bomb?

expressed a preference for a black and white (fer us or agin us) type foreign policy

Not quite but I do support it regarding terrorism.

rdw, still displaying his ignorance, writes: "It had nothing to do with it"

Yes, dear, it did, and it's rather foolish of you to pretend otherwise, not to mention a complete and willful ignoring of the events in Iraq of the past several years. Still just as obtuse as ever, aren't you, dear?

rdw wrote: "I am guessing the claim about their ability to manufacture a bomb was factual since it was they who were making it"

Well, you see, dear heart, that just showcases the little problem you have, since Iran made no such claim. As usual, you're simply making shit up.

"I think the differences between the two are trivial in terms of US foreign policy."

And once again, this simply shows off your ignorance, dear. You really should try a little harder to keep up.

"We have a foreign policy based on our values and it should treat all the same."

No, dear, we don't, nor should we. Such a policy would be rather impractical in the real world, which is why no president has ever strictly followed such a policy.

"I don't recall Steyn making many distinctions between the two."

Well, dear, if true, that simply shows you why you should be cautious about what Steyn writes, doesn't it?

"His most salient characteristic is radical islam is a stain on humanity and must be defeated. They will not change. Either they kill us or we kill them."

Personally, I rather doubt that Steyn said those precise words. If he did, he's an idiot.

rdw wrote: "I haven't heard any saber rattling regarding Iran nor do I expect to hear it."

Kept your fingers in your ears for the past year or so, have you, dear? The Bush administration has done nothing but rattle sabers with respect to Iran for much of the year. Alas, their ill-advised and ill-fated Iraq adventure has rendered most of that rattling impotent. Our threats are empty and Iran knows it.

rdw wrote: "I'm not troubled by a nuclear armed Iran. It's not a problem for the US or Israel."

Really, dear? You should tell the Bush administration this, not to mention the Olmert administration. They both disagree with you.

cyntax wrote: "I think it's a lot like the problems we faced with Croatians and Serbians where a totalitarian ruler had kept ethnic strife under control."

Of course it is, which is why so many people predicted this very outcome. It's what kept Bush I from "finishing the job" in the first Gulf War. He knew that the problem of what to do with Saddam gone was simply not a solvable problem and that the entire region could end up in turmoil. Alas that his son did not learn this lesson from his old man. The current state of affairs in Iraq was not only predictable, it was predicted.

Mark Steyn is an idiot. His ability to understand the dynamics of a situation and make predictions based on that are as bad as rdw's, and his record is just abysmal.

Here's a nice summary by Geoffrey Wheatcroft writing in the Guardian.

"Apart from predicting that George Bush would win the 2000 presidential election in a landslide, Steyn said at regular intervals that Osama bin Laden "will remain dead". Weeks after the invasion of Iraq he assured his readers that there would be "no widespread resentment at or resistance of the western military presence"; in December 2003 he wrote that "another six weeks of insurgency sounds about right, after which it will peter out"; and the following March he insisted that: "I don't think it's possible for anyone who looks at Iraq honestly to see it as anything other than a success story."

Yeah, that guys a genius -- to morons.

"You can't claim on the one hand that nobody listens to the mullahs and that the mullahs have absolute power."

"Sure I can."

Yes, dear, we know, but when you do, we just giggle, since it's so obviously a foolish statement, well in keeping with all of those other little fantasies you have.

rdw wrote: "I haven't read America alone but I suspect his prediction is Eurabia is all but inevitable and the way it happens is these islands under islamic control will grow, spread and connect until major parts of Europe are under Islamic law, if only in practice."

LOL.... If Steyn did write something like that, he'd just demonstrate that he's as foolish an idiot as you. Again, I rather suspect he did not. Steyn's role is more of a warmonger. He simply wants us to attack, anyone and everyone, and the quicker and harder we do it, the more he likes it.

rdw wrote: "Terrorist are ALL the same."

No, dear, they aren't, but it's not too surprising that you think so, given your complete lack of knowledge and complete lack of rational thought. Each group has its own goals, its own identity, its own supporters, its own tactics, its own territory. Pretending that they are alike and dealing with them accordingly is a recipe for utter failure.

PaulB -

Bush43 "did not learn the lesson" from something Bush41 refused to do? There's a double-negative somewhere in there.

By the way, rdw, dear, it took me 30 seconds in Google to find examples of Steyn lying. It took me 30 seconds in that "nina" post above to find examples of Steyn being really, really stupid.

Spock wrote: "Bush43 "did not learn the lesson" from something Bush41 refused to do? There's a double-negative somewhere in there."

Nope. The intent is quite plain and the English is grammatically correct.

For all you need to know about Mark, just check out the March 23rd interview here. It's hilarious in how delusional it is and just how wrong it is about the events in Iraq.

PaulB,

"spock" is Chuckles. He tipped his hand on the other thread.

Let's all say goodnight to Chuckles--he's been working real hard on his new persona and it only took his obsessive-compulsive cut-and-paste out of Wikipedia to blow his cover.

I think PaulB finally beat rdw. Wasn't even a fair fight. It takes infinite patience and attention to detail to face down rdw, and PaulB has it--and by "it" I mean a talent for kicking ass and taking names with facts, information and analysis--in spades.

rdw takes his marching orders from shit-for-brains canadian high school dropout steyn? how appropriate ... I guess we're even importing our white trash, now. another sign of the trade defecit.

PaulB, a hint: drop the "dear" schtick. It just makes you look stupid. And infantile.

PaulB, a hint: drop the "dear" schtick. It just makes you look stupid. And infantile.

Hey, schtick is good. Schtick means you got style.

What, we're all supposed to be humorless pricks?

I think PaulB finally beat rdw. Wasn't even a fair fight. It takes infinite patience and attention to detail to face down rdw, and PaulB has it--and by "it" I mean a talent for kicking ass and taking names with facts, information and analysis--in spades.

For sure PR. I dropped by to see how things had gone after I left and was gratified to see PaulB jumped in and really started swinging.

Nice job PaulB, and keep the "dear" schtick-- if only to piss 'em off.

Are Spock and Chuckles synonymous? Guess I got suckered on that one.

cecce posted: "PaulB, a hint: drop the "dear" schtick. It just makes you look stupid. And infantile."

LOL... Dear heart, I use that particular schtick when I'm trolling someone who isn't worth the trouble to really debate. It is intentionally offensive and condescending and I have a great time with it. Alas, I fear that I will not be taking your advice. I'm sure that you're simply mortified, as am I, but that's the way the world works sometimes.

Now if someone were to join this thread who is actually worth taking seriously, who doesn't live in a fantasy world, who has genuine information to share, can debate with logic and reason, and has an open mind to accept counter-arguments and information in return, then my posts will change accordingly. So far, that hasn't happened. Do let me know if it does, won't you, dear? Thanks ever so.

Go check the thread--when cornered, he cut and pasted something out of wikipedia.

Classic Chuckles.

He never learns...

Pale Rider wrote: "spock" is Chuckles. He tipped his hand on the other thread."

Yeah, I know, but since he was mostly behaving himself in this thread and since I've been focusing on rdw, I let him get by with just a warning.

"I think PaulB finally beat rdw."

Oh, hell, that's not particularly difficult. I did that on the earlier thread I mentioned above, as well. All it takes is phenomenal patience and persistence, and a hell of a lot of free time. It doesn't even take much in the way of real knowledge, since you can easily beat him by simply demanding, ad nauseam, that he back up his assertions. Since he can't, he is inevitably reduced to sputtering out the usual idiotic slogans and strawman arguments.

"Wasn't even a fair fight."

Yup, because rdw really is genuinely clueless and genuinely delusional. I find him amusing, but I rarely have the time to give him this kind of attention, not to mention that to do so, I have to basically destroy the thread. It's entertaining, but hardly fair to everyone else here, which is why I only do it on rare occasions. The next time likely won't take place until late 2007, at which time, I'm sure dear little rdw will have given me plenty more grist for the mill. Hell, I can just mine this thread, since so much of what he has written above is wildly and hilariously inaccurate.

"if only to piss 'em off."

That's precisely why I do it. It drives the trolls nuts. It even got me on to the top-secret, super-duper, really-this-time-I-mean-it, "ignore" list of our dear friend Chuckles, an honor I share with just one other poster (howard). Of course, dear little Chuckles eventually had to abandon that list, since he couldn't resist responding to the bait and since everyone was laughing at his over-the-top drama queen behavior.

I've used this schtick successfully against several of the trolls here and have had a great time counter-trolling them. The really weird thing is that even when I flat out tell them what I'm doing, they still cannot help themselves and they still fall all over themselves to rise to the bait.

I occasionally wonder whether rdw is just another elaborate troll, given that he fits at least a couple of the attributes. He does seem to be genuinely delusional, though, and he's been doing this for nearly two years now, so if he is a troll, my hat's off to him -- he's one of the best I've ever met.

PaulB--

Don't forget Donna Pissypants.

Wonder what happened to that psycho...

By the way, rdw, dear, it took me 30 seconds in Google to find examples of Steyn lying. It took me 30 seconds in that "nina" post above to find examples of Steyn being really, really stupid.

so where are the examples?

I guess we're even importing our white trash, now. another sign of the trade defecit

Now that's a one-liner.

Even Steyn would get a chuckle out of that. I find it hard to believe such an articulate man is a high school drop-out. Agree or disagree with his points the man has style and is very funny.

Fret not our trade deficit. Liberals have been whinning about it for 40 years. We're doing just fine.

I find it hard to believe such an articulate man is a high school drop-out.

IN the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, rdw still clings to his own personal prejudices and beliefs, and ignores the facts.

Mr Steyn is a Toronto-born high school dropout turned music critic who first entered journalism in 1986. Today, he commands an international following for his muscular defence of the administration of President George W Bush and knows a thing or two about clever rejoinders.

What's that? A fact?

Means nothing to rdw. Why, just the other day, old Europe said Kyoto was dead and Ronald Reagan waved his hand and the tax rate dipped to 4 percent and Mark Steyn? Why, someone that intelligent has to have graduated from Yale.

Does the fun ever start???

Mark Steyn on the Northern Alliance

Listen to the Northern Alliance Radio Network tomorrow, when we'll be talking to Mark Steyn about his new book, America Alone, and events in general. Mark will be on at noon central, 1:00 eastern. Go here to listen on line. And go here to buy Mark's book.

link is powerline.com

Wherein PaulB Reveals There Is So Much More To Him Than Meets The Eye:

"Dear heart, I use that particular schtick when I'm trolling someone who isn't worth the trouble to really debate."

Yet he just spent half the day of his no-doubt precious time trolling here in PA-land debating rdw. And didn't even do all that well.

"It is intentionally offensive and condescending and I have a great time with it."

Noone doubts he has a great time. That's what I meant. If his reading comprehension was above 3rd grade level, he would have gotten that. It's the fact that he has such a great time that's distinguishes him from the rest here - by making him seem, shall we say, even more pimply.

"Alas, I fear that I will not be taking your advice. I'm sure that you're simply mortified, as am I, but that's the way the world works sometimes."

At this the reader looks out the window, down at his shoes, he tries to hide his eyes.

"Now if someone were to join this thread who is actually worth taking seriously, who doesn't live in a fantasy world, who has genuine information to share, can debate with logic and reason, and has an open mind to accept counter-arguments and information in return, then my posts will change accordingly."

This is where the method to the madness is revealed. And what a method it is: he's intentionally choosing not to expose his genius to the world JUST YET. Perhaps he thinks it will wither and die if so exposed. But, like a committed virgin, it's all for something good: he's "saving himself" for a future, worthy, opponent. But when-oh-when will this knight in shining rhetorical armour arrive on the field of intellectual battle so PaulB's true genius can reveal itself? We may never know...

"So far, that hasn't happened. Do let me know if it does, won't you, dear?"

The world waits with some anticipation for this blessed event. Will PaulB's true love ever appear? No doubt he will be a fierce debater. Logic and new information will be much on display. It may get a little rough.

Then but only then will PaulB gently reveal himself, while accepting counterarguments. Yielding, softly but eagerly (but not too eagerly - he's kept his virginity for a long time and, well, one doesn't throw such a precious gift on just anyone) to his new-found love, the world will FINALLY know that PaulB is capable of spirited rejoinders, logical thrusts the likes of which are rarely seen, and hot one-on-one debate action of a nature very likely illegal in all 50 states and most overseas territories.

Until then, he stubbornly chooses to remain the chump we have seen here today.

Steyn was born in Toronto, educated at King Edward's School, Birmingham, England, but dropped out of education at 16 and returned to Canada to work as a disc jockey.

King Edwards produced a very successful writer in a very short period.

rdw, vainly, wrote: "so where are the examples?"

Dear heart, I'm not here to educate you. It took me 30 seconds. Feel free to conduct your own search. It's not particularly difficult.

"Fret not our trade deficit."

ROFL.... Don't you just love this guy? Just whisks away trouble with the wave of his hand, that very hand. Hilarious!

Dear heart, I'm not here to educate you. It took me 30 seconds. Feel free to conduct your own search. It's not particularly difficult

So you could not fnd anything!.

cecce, bent on providing me amusement now that rdw is winding down, writes: "Wherein PaulB Reveals There Is So Much More To Him Than Meets The Eye"

That's rather obvious, dear heart. I do so wish I could return the compliment but alas, I fear that I cannot. Such is life.

"Yet he just spent half the day of his no-doubt precious time trolling here in PA-land debating rdw."

And having a marvelous time, dear. Do you still not get just how much fun this is? rdw is so precious in his delusions, so absolutely clueless, that this is highly entertaining. As for the time I spend, don't worry your little head about it. It's a sacrifice I'm quite happy to make.

"And didn't even do all that well."

ROFL.... Whatever you say, dear.

"Noone doubts he has a great time."

Really, dear? Most of the trolls seem to have trouble grasping this quite obvious and basic fact.

"That's what I meant. If his reading comprehension was above 3rd grade level, he would have gotten that."

LOL.... Really, dear? From whom would I have "gotten that?"

"It's the fact that he has such a great time that's distinguishes him from the rest here - by making him seem, shall we say, even more pimply."

LOL.... Interesting theories you have, dear heart. Your little fantasies are almost as entertaining as dear little rdw's. Are you, perhaps, thinking of challenging the master? He's had far more practice than you, so you'll really have to work hard to reach his level.

"At this the reader looks out the window, down at his shoes, he tries to hide his eyes."

Does he, dear? Which reader would that be?

"This is where the method to the madness is revealed."

Not really, dear, it's simply more trolling. I fear that I'm still going too fast for you. I'll wait while you catch up.

"And what a method it is: he's intentionally choosing not to expose his genius to the world JUST YET."

ROFL.... Whatever you say, dear heart. Nice try, by the way. I'm suitably impressed.

"The world waits with some anticipation for this blessed event."

So do I, dear. Alas, I fear that we will have to continue waiting.

"Until then, he stubbornly chooses to remain the chump we have seen here today."

Yes, dear, I do; I also stubbornly choose to continue enjoying myself enormously. Thanks so much for the entertainment. I can hardly wait to see what you come up with next.

rdw, rather lamely, wrote: "So you could not fnd anything!"

LOL.... Yes, dear, I could, and did. You see, dear heart, unlike you, I actually do know what I'm talking about and I don't make assertions unless I can back them up. I'm sorry this is so troubling to you.

Don't you just love how dear little cecce fell right into the trap? I love it when these guys let themselves be trolled. They simply cannot help but respond, even when I tell them, as I did here, precisely what it is that I'm doing. This has been a highly entertaining day.

Give it up paulb cecce owned you. Get some rest and come back tomorrow, mayB you have a better day then.

LOL... Sweaty guy, cecce did precisely what I expected and responded precisely as I intended. I loved the response and have to give high marks for it, though, so not a total loss.

ceece:

> rmck1, you can't have it both ways. You can't both claim
> that Iran is no threat

I never claimed that Iran is "no threat." Iran is an enemy of
the US. I did claim (and it's more than a claim) that Iran
doesn't drive al Qaeda-style international terrorism. And it
doesn't; it sponsors Hezbollah, which is not the same thing.

> and the only thing to worry about is Sunni extremist terrorism

Sunni extremist terrorism is the great existential fear
of the West. It's what fueled 9/11, London, Madrid, Bali,
Jakarta, Amman and a number of other suicide bomber incidents.

> and at the same time claim that OF COURSE Iran will
> support Sunni extremist groups. One negates the other.

Only if you conflate Western security with the security of
Israel. I personally don't; Israel is a big boy and can take
care of itself. Hamas is not a threat to London. Al Qaeda is.

> As for the "shit-for-brains" comment, I can't claim authorship
> there (someone else posting under my handle). Shit happens.

No problem; that was Chuckles -- who doubtless did the nina
Steyn dump in this thread, too. Posting huge chunks of crap
without attribution is a Chuckles specialty. As soon as
"Spock" got all defensive about wikipedia, I knew it was him :)

Paul B:

I have a different approach with Wooten. I don't go head-to-head
on his premises as much as you do. It's fine that folks do; that's
an important component of taking that kind of swill to task. But
to me, that's a little like Monty Python's Argument Clinic. I'm a
bit more philosophical, and enjoy getting down to the fundamental
contradictions in his worldview -- like it not being possible to
be both a genuine conservative and a free market booster at the
same time. Or that supporting the Saudis in Iraq is the functional
equivalent of supporing the Sunni insurgency. I like to debate
with self-contained arguments, not data (mainly because I'm lazy).

Bob

Well, all good things must come to an end and it's time for me to head out for the evening. Thanks for providing such a wonderful thread, rdw. I always have a great time with your little fantasy world. And thanks for providing that lovely little cherry on top of the sundae, cecce. I look forward to running into you again.

rdw:

I realize this thread is about played, but I wanted revisit a point you made above about why the international community is freaking out at Iran's nuclear program if Iran is indeed sincere about not wanting to build a weapon.

This seems contradictory, and while it's prudent to doubt Iran's stated motives -- there's also another way to read this that's consistent with both Iran's actions and its statements on the subject.

For Iran, it's about more than merely generating electricity. It's about developing its own indigenous nuclear industry. It could have all the nuke power it wants if it agrees to Russia's plan to do the fuel processing off-site. It doesn't agree to this because it wants Iranian scientists and technicians to perfect that process.

Why? I think it's reasonable to read this in line with Iran's statements about it: It doesn't wish to be beholden to the West, and it looks at that technological achievement as a matter of Islamic pride. Since you're the crypto-racist who's always going on about how the Mideast hasn't produced a technological innovation in 500 years, you really ought to think about giving Iran a break for trying.

As for bomb-building, well this is one helluvan inefficient way to jump-start a weapons program, as cyntax noted above. It's one thing to lightly enrich enough uranium to run a light-water reactor. It's quite another thing to use gas centrifuges to produce the 80% pure U-235 to produce a crude Hiroshima-type weapon. That would take thousands of centrifuges, not hundreds -- and it's the consensus of the IAEA (who recently took BushCo to task for vastly exaggerating Iran's nuke capabilities) that Iran is still many years out from that.

If Iran was really *really* nukehappy and wanted a weapon, it could doubtless purchase a hunk of plutonium from North Korea. Plutonium is pretty easy to smuggle (an alpha emitter; you can carry it in a Thermos safely) and you don't need that much of it to use it in a crude, shotgun-type fission weapon. You wouldn't use all the energy -- you need an implosion device for that, and the engineering is quite tricky. But it would do the job, and Iran would have a couple of low-yield nukes in a couple years it could stick on its vaunted intermediate-range missiles.

But it hasn't done that -- and nobody's made accusations that it's tried.

Gee, I wonder why. Maybe you might take what the regime has said about their nuke program at face value? Woah, wotta concept ...

Bob

>>Steyn is a fabulous wordsmith and a joy to read.
Posted by: rdw

Do you have clue as to the root meaning of 'fabulous'?

'Feigned, false; related to fable' - Chamber's Twentieth Century

Oh, that's right. You couldn't buy a clue.

I live in the real world of 2006. He's what fabulous means in this world.

WONDERFUL, MARVELOUS

bob,

Apparently you are under the illusion Iranians
scientists are doing the research. Not quite. Iran has been hiring Russian and other nuclear talent since the USSR collapsed. This isn't Islamic pride becasue muslims aren't doing the work not did they do it in Pakistan or NK. They won't get ANY scientific credit. Just like Russian and Chinese technology. There's no such thing. It's what they've stolen.

So why no inspections? If they're peaceful this s/b a slam-dunk.

Iran has been supporting terror and making agressive and bizarre statements since 1979. The current President is most famous for being a terrorists and part of th 444 day hostage crises and making nutty statements at least once a week.

Why exctly would Iran pick nuclear power to make their scientific statement? Why not cure cancer? Since they sit on the worlds 2nd largest deposites of clean burning natral gas we know it's not for electricity. Since they sit on the worlds 3rd largest deposits of oil and still must import gasoline and other refined products it wold make tons more sense to concentrate on refining. Besides creating tons more jobs they could also lower the cost of fuel. You are of course aware 40% of their people live below the poverty line and unemployment is sky high.

I'm also surprised you have considered the pure danger. You are of course distressed the USA has so many nuclear plants and they could be terror targets. Iran lives in a much, much more dangerous part of the world easily accessible by Israeli missles or for that matter from anyhere in the region. There's no question if Iran were to get in a war with any neighbor their nuclear facilities are target one. That's taking on a lot of eisk?

There isn't one single, sensible reason for developing nuclear power for electricity since it'll be vastly more expensive and dangerous than natural gas and there's no islamic science involved.

We've got some sick pups running the circus in Iran, Syria and NK. This exercise in Iran is meglomanical cruelity. Iran should be weathy. The fact they are tied with oil-poor Turkey in 95 place for per capital income is a disgrace. They should feel inferior. A 40% poverty rate with that kind of Oil and Gas wealth proves they are inferior. They can't refine their own oil products so they spend a large fortune, risking UN sanctions (did you like that little spat with Chirac?) to develop Nuclear Power?

It takes a special level of stupid to think these nuts mean well. You are an Orwellian intellectual. Allow me a quote from the famous George Orwell speaking of socialism: "Some things are so stupid only intellectuals will believe it".

Since you're the crypto-racist who's always going on about how the Mideast hasn't produced a technological innovation in 500 years, you really ought to think about giving Iran a break for trying.

What exactly is a crypto-racist anyway? I get the silly game. I'm a conservative ergo I'm racist (not that libs would ever stereotype) so you've got to make the charge periodically. Makes you feel like you're laying offense. The fact is Islamic backwardness has zero to do with race but your charges never do anyway.

As I explained Iran can't get a break for trying when it's obviously stupid and obviously cruel. This is a disaster for their people. They have a poverty rate over 40%. They are 95 in per capital income. They can't refine their own gasoline. That's pitiful. It's stupendously pitiful spending $30B developing nuclear power they don't need and then can't protect themselves from.

You are a moron suggesting otherwise.

rdw wrote: "I live in the real world of 2006. He's what fabulous means in this world."

He's gay? Wow... whodathunkit...

rdw, back for another round of punishment, wrote: "Apparently you are under the illusion Iranians scientists are doing the research."

Dear heart, since you obviously are as ignorant of these issues as you are of everything else, you're obviously simply making shit up again. Why do you persist in doing this? It simply makes you look foolish.

"Not quite. Iran has been hiring Russian and other nuclear talent since the USSR collapsed. This isn't Islamic pride becasue muslims aren't doing the work not did they do it in Pakistan or NK."

LOL.... Q.E.D. Like I said, simply making shit up. Dear heart, just for the record, of course Iran has made use of Russian technology, along with U.S. technology and German technology, among others. To pretend that they have no nuclear researchers, however, or that they have done none of the work or research themselves, just makes you look stupid.

"They won't get ANY scientific credit."

Well, other than having entered the nuclear power elite, which is quite likely enough credit for them.

"Just like Russian and Chinese technology. There's no such thing. It's what they've stolen."

ROFL.... Omigod.... Again, do you think he really believes this? Incredible....

"So why no inspections? If they're peaceful this s/b a slam-dunk."

Gee, dear, and what would you say if Iranian inspectors wanted to inspect American nuclear facilities and research laboratories? After all, if they are peaceful, it's a slam dunk, right?

"Why exctly would Iran pick nuclear power to make their scientific statement?"

Because it gets the most respect from the rest of the world? Because energy is quite possibly the single most important technology in the world today and the world ahead? There are quite a few reasons, dear heart. I'm sure a little thought would reveal quite a few more.

"Why not cure cancer?"

ROFL.... No comment needed....

"Since they sit on the worlds 2nd largest deposites of clean burning natral gas we know it's not for electricity."

No, dear, we don't "know" that.

"I'm also surprised you have considered the pure danger."

That's because you don't know anything about us, dear heart. The "liberal" boogeyman you have created exists only in your own mind.

"Iran lives in a much, much more dangerous part of the world easily accessible by Israeli missles or for that matter from anyhere in the region. There's no question if Iran were to get in a war with any neighbor their nuclear facilities are target one. That's taking on a lot of eisk?"

Not really. It's a manageable risk, which is why most experts conclude that taking out Iran's nuclear facilities is an enormously complex task, quite possibly beyond the power of the Israelis.

"There isn't one single, sensible reason for developing nuclear power for electricity since it'll be vastly more expensive and dangerous than natural gas and there's no islamic science involved."

LOL.... I just love this guy....

"They should feel inferior. A 40% poverty rate with that kind of Oil and Gas wealth proves they are inferior."

No comment necessary....

"It takes a special level of stupid to think these nuts mean well."

It also takes a special level of stupid to pontificate on issues about which you are transparently ignorant, and yet here you are.

"You are an Orwellian intellectual. Allow me a quote from the famous George Orwell speaking of socialism: 'Some things are so stupid only intellectuals will believe it.'"

LOL... Couldn't have said it better myself, rdw, dear, particularly since someone above wrote: "I'm not troubled by a nuclear armed Iran. It's not a problem for the US or Israel." Now what was that about "a special level of stupid," dear?

rdw, still bent on looking silly, wrote: "What exactly is a crypto-racist anyway?"

Dear heart, you could look it up, if you were truly interested.

"I get the silly game."

LOL.... No, dear, you clearly do not, alas.

"I'm a conservative ergo I'm racist"

No, dear, you're a racist because you make racist comments. This really isn't difficult, dear; did you not have your morning coffee?

"Makes you feel like you're laying offense."

"Laying offense?" LOL....

"The fact is Islamic backwardness has zero to do with race but your charges never do anyway."

Q.E.D. Oh, the irony.... Wonder if rdw realizes how he is constantly shooting himself in the foot?

"As I explained Iran can't get a break for trying when it's obviously stupid and obviously cruel."

"It" is, dear?

"It's stupendously pitiful spending $30B developing nuclear power they don't need and then can't protect themselves from."

Dear heart, have you really not done any research on the Iranian nuclear facilities? Are you truly so ignorant as to debate an issue about which you know absolutely nothing?

Oh wait... I'm talking to rdw... The question answers itself. Never mind, dear.

"You are a moron suggesting otherwise."

Oh, the irony....

Maybe you might take what the regime has said about their nuke program at face value? Woah, wotta concept

Maybe if you had a clue you could see the obvious. This is a poor country that should be wealthy. There are 10,000,000 things the people need before nuclear power. This is grotesquely cruel and so are you.

One of the very possible scenarios here is Iran continues to dick around with the UN and EU and their neighbors just get tired of it and start their own programs. There is no doubt in my mind Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, at a minimum, have already allocated resources toward the early stages of acquiring nuclear weapons. When the threats 1st developed credibility they had their meetings to decide if they could live with Iran as a nuclear power. I can't iamagine any leader in that part of the world saying, "yes". Once you answer the question the contingency planning begins. The crazier Iran becomes the more advanced the planning becomes.

Two of the more interesting reactions some months back when Iran noted they had missle that could easily reach Paris and Berlin were from Chirac and Merkel. Jacques gave the expected boilerplate along the lines of "France will defense itself and return fire with more fire". Merkel gave a much more dramatic response. She sold Israel two more subs designed for 2nd strike capability. The message there of course wasn't just to Iran but all of Islam. I think it's accepted Israel already has the firepower to erase Iran from the map. With these subs we can add Mecca, all of SA, Syria etc.

What should concern the Sauds more, a direct confrontation with Iran or a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel. I'd pick the latter. Iran is so friggin incompetent they could miss. The Israeli's won't miss.

Intersting how much more dangerous the region is now isn't it?

rdw wrote: "Maybe if you had a clue you could see the obvious."

Dear heart, why on earth do you keep saying the same things over and over and over and over again? Do you think they somehow get more impressive or more realistic just because you keep saying them?

"This is grotesquely cruel and so are you."

LOL.... Tsk, tsk, bob; rdw disapproves of you. I'm sure that's going to keep you up at night.

"One of the very possible scenarios here is Iran continues to dick around with the UN and EU and their neighbors just get tired of it and start their own programs."

Dear heart, it would be rather foolish to assume otherwise, regardless of whether Iran continues to pursue nuclear power or not.

"There is no doubt in my mind Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, at a minimum, have already allocated resources toward the early stages of acquiring nuclear weapons."

No shit, Sherlock. This isn't exactly a stunning revelation.

"When the threats 1st developed credibility they had their meetings to decide if they could live with Iran as a nuclear power. I can't iamagine any leader in that part of the world saying, 'yes'."

I can't imagine any leader in that part of the world thinking that they have much of a choice in the matter.

"Once you answer the question the contingency planning begins. The crazier Iran becomes the more advanced the planning becomes."

Really, dear? What planning is this?

"Two of the more interesting reactions some months back when Iran noted they had missle that could easily reach Paris and Berlin were from Chirac and Merkel."

Dear heart, you really should stop simply making shit up, you know. You always get called on it and you always end up looking foolish.

"She sold Israel two more subs designed for 2nd strike capability."

Q.E.D. Dear heart, had you spent just 30 seconds in researching this, you would have seen that those two subs had nothing to do with Iran.

"The message there of course wasn't just to Iran but all of Islam."

No, dear, as usual, you're simply making shit up.

"I think it's accepted Israel already has the firepower to erase Iran from the map."

To do enormous damage, certainly. To wipe it from the map? Not likely.

"With these subs we can add Mecca, all of SA, Syria etc."

LOL.... You don't know anything military matters, either, do you? Is there no end to your ignorance?

"Intersting how much more dangerous the region is now isn't it?"

LOL... No, dear, not really. Poor deluded guy....

Among other things, dear, had you even done 30 seconds of research on those two subs, you'd have seen that the deal was signed by Schroeder, not Merkel, and that the history for the deal dates all the way back to 1988. But then, facts and accuracy never have been your strong point, have they, dear? You much prefer your little fantasies.

Poor PaulB, he thinks he's funny and clever. His posts have the look of a toddler on a potty: total self-satisfaction. Too bad this internets thing doesn't have a "You have to be at least THIS tall to go on this ride" sign.

regular wrote: "Poor PaulB, he thinks he's funny and clever."

LOL.... Only compared to those I'm debating, dear.

"His posts have the look of a toddler on a potty: total self-satisfaction."

Toilet humor? Dear heart, is this really the best you can do? Tsk, tsk.... You should take lessons from cecce. At least that one was a well-constructed slam, if not particularly original.

"Too bad this internets thing doesn't have a 'You have to be at least THIS tall to go on this ride' sign."

I've often thought so myself, dear. I'll be happy to sign your petition to that effect. By the way, dear, YHBT. HAND.

PaulB, there's a message below for you, just in time for Christmas:

http://downloads.southparkstuff.com/sounds/epi216/216_wonderful.mp3

PaulBitch writes: "You should take lessons from cecce. At least that one was a well-constructed slam"

Just reading through the above, I see that he outwrites most people here. None more than PaulBitch, though.

Just checking in now because I noticed this thread is up to 500 or so posts. Don't have time to read it all, but wow: looks like PaulBitch has been on here almost continuously for 48 hours, with only a few hours off for sleep in the middle. He usually posts a reply immediately when someone else logs in. YHBT, indeed. He must have no life.

"regular," not realizing just how much he's playing into my hands and how much I'm loving it, writes: "Just reading through the above, I see that he outwrites most people here."

Not really, dear. That little rant was, alas, the only well-written item from him or her on this thread. Interesting fact, that.

"None more than PaulBitch, though."

LOL... Ooh, baby, I just love it when you get all indignant and self-righteous. Do it again!

"Just checking in now because I noticed this thread is up to 500 or so posts."

Yup, that's what it takes to beat down someone like rdw. Don't worry your pretty little head, though; he'll be back.

"Don't have time to read it all, but wow: looks like PaulBitch has been on here almost continuously for 48 hours, with only a few hours off for sleep in the middle."

LOL... I'm touched by your concern, dear heart. Thanks ever so.

"He usually posts a reply immediately when someone else logs in. YHBT, indeed. He must have no life."

ROFL.... Glass houses and all that.... Oh, and YHBT, dear. HAND.

"And while he's at it, Obaid tosses out a warning to Iran the American oil industry that Saudi Arabia might also try to drive oil prices into the ground by increasing production and cutting its own prices in half."

Kevin, I think that warning was for Iran more than for the US. The American oil industry tends to thrive in high-volatility price markets (in addition to high-price markets, admittedly). And the US economy - in general - would tend to do better with $10 oil. Whether the Saudis have the ability to do this is another matter. I would tend to agree that they do not. However, there does seem to be a bit of spare capacity within OPEC at the moment.

b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9 b10 b11 b12 b13 b14 b15 b16 b17 b18 b19 b20 b21 b22 b23 b24 b25 b26 b27 b28 b29 b30 b31 b32 b33 b34 b35 b36 b37 b38 b39 b40 b41 b42 b43 b44 b45 b46 b47 b48 b49 b50 b51 b52 b53 b54 b55 b56 b57 b58 b59 b60 b61 b62 b63 b64 b65 b66 b67 b68 b69 b70 b71 b72 b73 b74 b75 b76 b77 b78 b79 b80 b81

Kevin, I think that warning was for Iran more than for the US.

Quite right. It was absolutely 100% intended for Iran. A price drop to $35 wouldn't hurt big oil at all but would do signficant harm to Iran economically.

I'm not quite sure why Kevin thinks 'threatening' big oil matters to anyone compared to a dozen contries dependent on Oil revenues for their budgets.

There is over 2M barrels of spare capacity and more than 1M is from the Sauds. Moreover they also have a great deal already pumped and stored they can dump on markets. It's very doubtful they can drive the price down to $30 let alone $10 but they can drive it down 30% or more. Each $10 price drop costs Iran $9B.

If the Sauds decide they really need to deal a blow they can also quickly add to capacity. Just the announcement of doing so would drive prices lower. They are very concerned about Iran and will not be dominated in any way by them.

Questions,questions? Are the Liberals mad because..1..Bush is finally negotiating or he is 2..talking to THEM F>>N towel heads in SAUDI LAND 3..thinking ahead 4..Trying to pull the wool over Pelosi 5..Just acting like he is listening to throw Pelosi off her game 6..sending Chaney around to collect Retirement benifits 7..Really is concerned about Killing Terrorists and is looking to find some help 8.. is not talking to the Nuts in France 10..Getting ready to Nuke the whole Middle East and wants to appear to be nice like AAUUUCHK MA DINI JOD.Irans answer to Hitler. You see boys and girls their are many things to ponder and fret over.How does it feel to win an Election and still be Useless?

rdw wrote: "Quite right. It was absolutely 100% intended for Iran. A price drop to $35 wouldn't hurt big oil at all but would do signficant harm to Iran economically."

It would do significant harm to every oil-producing nation, including Saudi Arabia. And considering how much of S.A.'s GDP is based on oil, it's not at all clear that this is anything more than empty posturing.

"There is over 2M barrels of spare capacity and more than 1M is from the Sauds."

Not really. Look up "peak oil." What is being reported by the oil-producing nations and by the oil companies has already been shown to be false. Most recently, Shell Oil and Kuwait were both caught falsifying the numbers and there is very good reason to believe that Saudi Arabia has been doing the same thing.

"Moreover they also have a great deal already pumped and stored they can dump on markets."

And again, not really. That wouldn't be more than a few days or weeks, at most, hardly enough to be more than a blip on the radar.

"It's very doubtful they can drive the price down to $30 let alone $10 but they can drive it down 30% or more. Each $10 price drop costs Iran $9B."

What does it cost Saudi Arabia?

"If the Sauds decide they really need to deal a blow they can also quickly add to capacity."

And again, not really. What they claim they can do is not borne out by the available data.

"Just the announcement of doing so would drive prices lower."

Only if they were actually able to deliver. If they cannot, failing to execute on the threat could well have the opposite effect they intended, since it would reveal, once and for all, the truth about their capacity.

I'll give you credit, though; this post was less delusional than normal.

I was going to respond to Glyn Lockhart above, but there are some posts that simply defy parody, posts where ridicule and satire are redundant. There just isn't anything anyone can say or do, other than to shake your head and hope that the meds start kicking in soon.

I wrote about PunkB - "He usually posts a reply immediately when someone else logs in. YHBT, indeed. He must have no life."

His reply - "ROFL.... Glass houses and all that.... Oh, and YHBT, dear. HAND."

Can't even get your metaphors straight huh? "Glass houses" refers to criticizing someome for doing something stupid (such as spending 40-50 hours continuously posting tripe on a thread) when you've been doing exactly the same.

But how can we forget: PunkB has "HAND"

And he's gonna need it.

Wow, PaulB, I told you last night to go home and get a rest. And here you are, almost 24 hours later, still embarrassing yourself. It's almost as if you've been here all night and all day, getting stupider by the hour.

Give it up paulb cecce owned you. Posted by: sweaty guy

PaulB "responds" - "LOL... Sweaty guy, cecce did precisely what I expected and responded precisely as I intended."

Then why did you whine like a little bitch about it, right after (at 12:33)? He got you, didn't he?

"I loved the response and have to give high marks for it, though,"

Smartest thing you've said all week. But then...

" so not a total loss."

So, first you claim that cecce responded PRECISELY as you intended (which indicates this was a huge win for you) and then you come up with: "not a total loss" - hmmmm. Must be pretty nice to have such a total vacuum between the ears. Nothing registers so no harm can ever be done. I think I can see why cecce left the discussion - for people like PaulB, there's like a force field of stupid around their heads. Nothing gets through.

You should have taken cecce's advice, which was probably well meant: drop the diva mannerisms. It's not just that it makes you look so dumb, as cecce pointed out, but that it makes you look so blazingly homosexual (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Wow... so much idiocy, so little time. Let's start with our new friend, "regular," shall we?

"Can't even get your metaphors straight huh?"

Dear heart, I know precisely what the metaphor means and I used it precisely as I intended. I'm so sorry you're having trouble understanding. Do try to keep up, won't you?

"But how can we forget: PunkB has "HAND." And he's gonna need it."

LOL... Dear heart, with people like you around, I'm practically guaranteed to HAND. It's amazing how many people are just hanging around waiting to amuse me. I really do feel guilty, though; I usually have to pay for this kind of entertainment.

Surprise: Oil Woes In Iran
Flagging output from its vast reserves could diminish Tehran's influence

Few countries can match Iran in its ability to generate angst among Westerners. It appears determined to become a nuclear power. Tehran's Islamic leaders aid radical groups across the Middle East. And as the U.S. gets bogged down in Iraq, Iran's influence in the region is