Article

2006-09-02 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Omoque Snereque6639 2006-09-02 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 What if this producer got ran over by a Mack truck. Juz saying

Posted by Captain America 2006-09-02 00:50|| 2006-09-02 00:50|| Front Page Top

#2 Die already, you bearded cucaracha!

Posted by Snease Shaiting3550 2006-09-02 01:08|| 2006-09-02 01:08|| Front Page Top

#3 *sigh* Some of these things are realistic, some not. A Middle Eastern person with a gun getting through the Secret Service is not realistic.

Posted by Charles 2006-09-02 01:34|| 2006-09-02 01:34|| Front Page Top

#4 Were Bush to be assassinated, especially by a person of Middle East descent, the potential for massive strikes against our Islamic enemies cannot be precluded. I would certainly support them, if only to deter any further meddling by them in our political process.

The article's author makes one huge error in his speculation about a possible war with Iran, to wit:

Syria was attacked, but Iran bore the brunt. Mass strikes by bombers and cruise missiles knocked out any capacity Iran had for making modern weapons, let alone nuclear bombs, but at a huge price. A country of 70million cowered under the shadow of burning oil wells and the pollution from devastated petro-chemical plants.

Fighting Iran turned out to be much bloodier than the blitzkrieg against Saddam's Iraq.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards had learned the lessons of Hezbollah's war with Israel. They avoided head-on confrontation with the U.S. Army's armoured columns. Ambush and sabotage were their weapons.

A grim war went on year after year in the lunar landscape which was much of Iran. As America struggled to find a replacement for the Ayatollahs' regime, even the willing support of Iranian émigrés from America wanting to wipe away the stain of the assassin's crime could not build a stable pro-U.S. government in Tehran.

Where is it writ that we must physically invade Iran in order to take Tehran's mullahs off line? By now, most of you here at Rantburg are more than familiar with my own projected scenario of simply going in and breaking all things Persian.

Let whatever political detritus that survives be sucked into the ensuing power vacuum. Nothing could be worse than Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. Should we be displeased with whomever takes the reins, rinse and repeat.

This is a far cry from how; "A grim war went on year after year in the lunar landscape which was much of Iran." America's technological might, especially in the form of military hardware, is specifically designed to keep our troops out of harm's way. It is certainly sufficient to cripple the vast majority of Iran's nuclear weapons R&D efforts and whatever infrastructure, be it military or economic, that we see fit.

Our intervention in Iraq was well-intended and met with much of the Western world's approval at that time. Given the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq, the practice of nation-building may well (and probably should be), be a thing of the past, especially so with restive Muslim societies.

By no means should this be interpreted as an unwillingness to carry the battle to our enemies. Instead, once they are punished, we should no longer feel obligated to reconstruct the foundations of those who seek to do us harm. If the mullahs are thrust from power (preferably in pine boxes) along with Ahmadinejad and Iran's nuclear ambitions are reset to near-zero, I could care f&ck-all about what happens to them next, save that they remember not to screw with us ever again.

I welcome comments and critique from those who wish to contribute. I also look forward to how others here interpret the above article. I'll repeat that whatever dislike I may have for Bush, I absolutely refuse to tolerate this sort of thinly veiled anti-American propaganda.

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-02 01:53|| 2006-09-02 01:53|| Front Page Top

#5 why would we invade Iran? This is mindless drivel. We would destroy their ports, their mullah's assets and properties, army barracks, any forms of state control: TV, Radio. Then, let the people have a chance to exact their revenge. We need to neither invade nor occupy Iran - they've pissed off enough people internally so that if we remove the theokleptocracy's powers of coercion, the aggrieved can do our work for us

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-09-02 02:00|| 2006-09-02 02:00|| Front Page Top

#6 It's pretty late, but... Indeed, Zenster & Frank G. This is so full of Fool's Gold it should become a dictionary example of Uro BDS and military ignorance.

The idiocy of an "historian" pretending to be a military expert in any sense is overwhelming here. He's completely ignorant of the technology lead the US military possesses, a combined arms coordination and aerial arsenal that is beyond comprehension by the willfully untutored. He is limited to thinking in WW-II / Vietnam terms... and foolish enough to project his ignorance. The presumption that the US military does not rapidly learn and adapt is another point implied and projected... obviously, to anyone who is paying attention nowadays, what was once the case is no longer true. I believe that, except in extremely limited special circumstances, we've learned another, a political, lesson well: no more nation-building.

Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly that the rule will be: if you build a shitpile of enmity and threaten us or anyone else we choose to ally with, then we will break it with extreme prejudice. And you're on your own after that. Repeat the mistake, and we'll break it, again.

He presumes a conventional WW-II-style response with conventional arms and invasion. Of course invasion isn't necessary to bring down the Iranian regime - it is a hollow and extremely vertical construct of Persian arrogance. He presumes we would see what we want to see, i.e. Arab sponsorship, regardless of the truth. Pure Uro BDS bias. We are far more capable in the area of backtracking intel that he can conceive. We would choose our response with exceedingly great care, despite his presumptions and bias... and it might not be limited to second tier, i.e. conventional arms, lethality. It would be, I hope, incredibly disproportional - a Tranzi icon of "truth" that needs obliteration as the pointless exercise in faux morality it is in fact.

The only thing I believe this guy gets perfectly right is the predicted duplicity of our erstwhile Uro "allies", now obviously triangulating adversaries in every sense. Time to lay to rest the Tranzi Myths of We Need Approval From Others and the UN as The Global Forum For Conflict Resolution and Legitimization, forever.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-02 03:08|| 2006-09-02 03:08|| Front Page Top

#7 Were the Pentagon allowed to deal with the enemy as they would like, it wouldn't be boots on the ground. Anything that can generate so much as an erg of power in any hostile country would be blown to smithereens. An air and naval blockade would be thrown around the offending country. If the country had something that we needed or wanted, we would take it and no natives would be allowed in the occupied areas. Basically, any press embedded with the enemy would be considered hostile and treated no different than the enemy they support. No need to fight an enemy army if you aren't concerned with collateral damage. As the jihadis say, kill them all, Allah will know his own.

Posted by RWV 2006-09-02 08:47|| 2006-09-02 08:47|| Front Page Top

#8 The assassination of John Kennedy at the height of the Cold War hadn't led to Armageddon in 1963, so why should things spiral out of control now if a president was murdered?

When Kennedy was assassinated the Reps were not engaged in a desperate lust of power taking them into the camp of the Soviets in a shared objective to destroy that President's vision for Democracy in the world. The atmosphere of hate and loathing wasn't being stoked to the current level of malice daily by MSM. Kennedy hadn't suffered for years of distortion, fabrications, and out right lies
directed to bring down his administration to the level we witness everyday. In fact, MSM was friendly, avoiding dirty little secrets which the administration certainly deserved a degree of critical observation. MSM wasn't bent on a 24 hour schedule racing for ratings with the biggest dose of blood and guts. And amazingly, some owners thought about the quality of their product.

Back in them old days, there was something actually known as compromise in Congress even with the classical Donks who work with the Rep in getting a half a loaf rather than political points with just part of their constituents. Conduct was civil. Today's Freudian outbursts of projection by Donk leadership shows us the intolerance they practice on a daily basis.

It is not 1963. It is nearer 1860. We've stop talking to each other and are talking past each other. History is just waiting for a triggering event, just like at Sarajevo in 1914. Keep playing with fire.

Posted by Shinenter Angomoque2229 2006-09-02 09:01|| 2006-09-02 09:01|| Front Page Top

#9 "The assassination of John Kennedy at the height of the Cold War hadn't led to Armageddon in 1963"

It always seemed like the Warren Report was hiding something. My belief is that the government at least suspected there was either Cuban or Russian involvement in the assassination - and the 'cover-ups' led to the 'conspiracy theories.' The government did not want to be put in a position where the people would demand retaliation against the Communists (whether they were involved or not); even though he was the President it was not worth the price. Archduke Ferdinand wasn't worth World War I, and a nuclear war with the USSR in 1963 would have been infinitely worse.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2006-09-02 09:29|| 2006-09-02 09:29|| Front Page Top

#10 As I have said before, nation building in Iraq was a noble experiment. I believe that if one had been sharing a beer at a barbeque with GWB in 2003, and asked him if he thought it was going to work, he would have told you, "It's a long shot, but we have to try." GWB realized that the alternative is horrible. The public would probably demand a massive retaliation in kind in the event of another mass casualty attack.

The adminitration watched the WTC come down and knew viscerally that it was only a matter of time until the USA was hit with WMD unless the trajectory of the Middle East was changed. Iraq served two purposes: a reasonably developed and somewhat secular country as a test bed for democracy, and a centralized base of operations if the experiment fails.

I believe that we have learned not to attempt nation building. Iraq has shown that the Muslim world does not want democracy - they want a Muslim world. Muslims will have to learn that this will not happen.

Future Americans will be grateful to GWB that he had the courage to attempt the Iraq experiment and the steadfastness to perservere in the face of the hatred of assorted Donk, MSM, LLL, academia...

About the article, there won't be another land war in the ME beyond occupying the oil fields. The military will simply reduce any power concentrations that stand against us. The UN will be closed. The EUnuchs are enemies. The Tranzi dream will be over for this round. I also believe that gloves would come off between the factions here if the president were assassinated by a Muslim or any of their fellow travelers in the LLL.

Posted by SR-71 2006-09-02 10:08|| 2006-09-02 10:08|| Front Page Top

#11 Imagine if they made a movie about a female senator being assassinated by a Moonbat because of her views in support of the war?

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-09-02 10:21|| 2006-09-02 10:21|| Front Page Top

#12 SR-71 hits the bulls-eye in #10; nails it, dead on, with every single word. In five short paragraphs, that is THE compleat explanation of what we've been doing since 9/11, and why.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-02 13:22|| 2006-09-02 13:22|| Front Page Top

#13 My guess is that Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and others already have 'contigency speeches' calling for 'no disportionate response' until we can consult with the UNSC.

All written and primed to 'whip out' if something like this did happen.

Posted by CrazyFool 2006-09-02 13:52|| 2006-09-02 13:52|| Front Page Top

#14 Movie's an EU / Tranzi wet dream.

Posted by lotp 2006-09-02 14:01|| 2006-09-02 14:01|| Front Page Top

#15 I'm against nation building in principle. However, when we deposed Hussein there was really no other way around it, hind sight being 20/20. We actually did it very well w/Japan&Germany in 46'&47' if anyone remembers and there was plenty of drama involved w/that as well (many do not remember that point). Obviously we all know islam is a different entity. Unless we were willing to the iraqi cultural attitudes (like we did w/the nazis and japanese nationalism) this was going to be a real long shot. We would've also had to make them swear new allegiance to the U.S. while leaving as many of their figure heads in power. Evidently a very distasteful thing to do in our new 24/7 msm spin cycle p.c. world, but a pragmatically minded thinking none the less. Imho, I don't think we looked at the case studies from rebuilding Japan and Germany enough.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-09-02 17:36|| 2006-09-02 17:36|| Front Page Top

#16 When these clowns ~~have wet dreams~~ fantacize about President Bush's assassination, do they ever go the extra step and even think about who is next in line?

Vice President. Speaker of the House. President pro tem of the Senate. Secretary of State.

Cheney. Hastart. Stevens. Rice.

Even as Americans clamored for revenge, the Leftist Dems and the MSM (but I repeat myself) would be urging "restraint," revealing their true selves even more to the citizens of America.

Never mind where the assassin actually came from. The bad guys of the world (including in this country) would be seriously fucked.

A scenario I'd like a lot better: President Bush lives to complete his second term, and spends that time fucking over the bad guys, here as well as abroad.

As for the dipshit who wrote this, and his idea of a long ground war in Iran: I want some of what he's been smoking. Idiot.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-09-02 19:32|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-09-02 19:32|| Front Page Top

#17 What really bothers me about this, is that we already have nutjobs who have committed criminal acts based on watching some TV show or some movie. Trying to reproduce what they have seen.

There is a nutter out there, that will see this movie, and take it upon him/herself to become a part of a new "reality TV." And that scares me.

Another reason for the DEMs to not get control. That line of secession list put Nancy in line for the presidency, and that should scare everyone!

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2006-09-02 19:52|| 2006-09-02 19:52|| Front Page Top

#18 Sherry, the question is whether that is the intended consequence of the show.

Posted by Matt 2006-09-02 21:54|| 2006-09-02 21:54|| Front Page Top

#19 #17: "Another reason for the DEMs to not get control. That line of secession list put Nancy in line for the presidency, and that should scare everyone!"

Not me - at least not for that reason. If the Dems get back in charge, the Lefties' urge to murder the President gets locked back in the basement - and even the most fruitcake non-Democrat doesn't advocate presidential murder.

The only time to be really worried about this is while a Republican is in the office - particularly the present one.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-09-02 21:56|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-09-02 21:56|| Front Page Top

#20 "particularly the present one"

That suggest an interesting question...

If a Pubbie wins in 2008, will the xDS continue unabated?

BDS has become an industry - just look at the Chomsky and other barking moonbat websites. Will that be abandoned - or will they simply continue to vilify anyone who is not Bill Clintoon?

I can't see them being very successful with some potential candidates, such as Giuliani, but with their very existence on the line, careers and $$$ in moonbattery will be a stake, I doubt they'd miss a beat.

Just a thought that hasn't been explored here AFAIK.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-02 22:06|| 2006-09-02 22:06|| Front Page Top

#21 "If a Pubbie wins in 2008, will the xDS continue unabated?"

My guess would be "yes." I figure BDS is pretty much a continuation of the insanity that's held the Donks in its grip ever since the Clinton impeachment; and if GWB is replaced by another Republican, the derangement will simply be transferred to him/her.

For that matter, I've often wondered whether the real purpose of the Clinton impeachment was to drive the Democrats so stark, raving, drooling bonkers that they'd start doing stupid shit and lose elections en masse. If it was, it's certainly worked so far.

Regarding this lefty wet-dream, wishful-thinking, puerile, DU-wanking-material piece of trash of a movie, it'll be interesting to see audience reactions when its released here in the States. Will Moore-ons flock to see it in droves to cheer and Kosturbate at the scene showing Bush getting shot? Will they be able to contain their glee? If not, how will non-BDS-afflicted audience members react?

Could get ugly...

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-02 22:46|| 2006-09-02 22:46|| Front Page Top

#22 "Kosturbate"

LOL! Excellent.

As for Clintoon, I subscribe to the idea that anyone who is dishonest in any facet of life is untrustworthy in all. His obvious perjury and the financial chicanery convinced me the man, along with his twisted co-conspirator wife, could not be trusted. Some of his financial schemes since leaving office, the Dubai Ports consulting gig comes immediately to mind, simply prooves he is, and was, a total whore. Impeachment and conviction should've been his fate. He's scum.

"Could get ugly..."

Agreed. This might be one of the seminal events that directly contributes to what you've long predicted: CW-II.

I happen to agree that's where we're headed, one step at a time. And, like the frog in the pot with the temperature rising slowly, many will be horrified when it comes, caught completely flat-footed by the backlash against their unthinking hatreds and support for the enemies of a Free America. I refuse to be dragged down with them - I'd rather go out blazing.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-02 23:03|| 2006-09-02 23:03|| Front Page Top

#23 Kosturbate is disturbing.....I suppose it's all process, frustration, and no success? Jeebus

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-09-02 23:15|| 2006-09-02 23:15|| Front Page Top

#24 Oh, and left hand for purity?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-09-02 23:15|| 2006-09-02 23:15|| Front Page Top

#25 btw - can we ixnay the "lefty wet dream"? I keep imagining some Kos kid waking up sticky in a mattress he shares with his minimum-wage parents in a basement

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-09-02 23:21|| 2006-09-02 23:21|| Front Page Top

#26 jeebus Fly...Kosturbate and seminal? No self-control? ;-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-09-02 23:22|| 2006-09-02 23:22|| Front Page Top

#27 Easy, Frank... try not to dwell on the details. LOL!

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-02 23:25|| 2006-09-02 23:25|| Front Page Top

23:56 Almost Anonymous5839
23:42 Alaska Paul
23:36 Barbara Skolaut
23:35 Frank G
23:35 Oztralian
23:33 newc
23:30 newc
23:28 Frank G
23:25 Dave D.
23:23 newc
23:22 Frank G
23:21 Frank G
23:17 Frank G
23:15 Frank G
23:15 Frank G
23:13 trailing wife
23:11 newc
23:06 Frank G
23:06 trailing wife
23:06 newc
23:03 flyover
23:03 GK
22:53 Dave D.
22:53 3dc
Merry-Go-Blog