Iran launches "space rocket...or missile".

Rand Simberg wrote:
And Saddam made it very clear that he wanted the world to think that
he had WMD. Whether true or not, it's a potentially suicidal thing to
do.


It's something that if it goes wrong, goes _really_ wrong.
It's a situation where both sides may think they know what the other
side is going to do in regards to their actions and completely misread
what the response will be.
The classic case is the Soviets sticking the missiles in Cuba.
Meanwhile, back in Iraq, our radical foreign policy reversal that was
first shown in regard to North Korea a week or so back continues:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17364686/
It looks like the Iraq Studies Group's recommendations are getting
implemented, and Cheney is no longer a major player.
Scuttlebutt is that Condolezza Rice is behind these moves.
If so, getting North Korea's fuel supply linked to South Korea rather
than China was a very clever move.
They'll be a lot less likely to attack a country that is supplying them
with fuel, as that would disrupt its production and shipment.

Pat

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:47:55 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
In article .com,
Quadibloc wrote:

It could happen at any moment, since the leadership of Iran has made
it very clear that it is willing to attack Israel.

No, they've made it very clear that they want us to think that.

It's not at all the same thing.

And Saddam made it very clear that he wanted the world to think that
he had WMD. Whether true or not, it's a potentially suicidal thing to
do.

Yes, and this latest news item that says that perhaps Iran just wants
us to *think* that it tested a rocket, instead of it actually having
tested one, definitely makes me think that Iran could be headed on a
course similar to Iraq's.

But since the United States has made it clear that they react badly to
bluffs, what is their strategy? Do they think the United States will
die of embarassment? Or maybe they are willing to sacrifice Iraq, so
that when some *other* Islamic country gets close to developing
WMD's...

political forces willing to *do* something about it will be
discredited.

Sort of like the story of the boy who cried "Wolf".

But a strategy that involves sacrificing *whole countries* as
expendable pawns! Who can believe it?

No one, since except for Pakistan, there's hardly a credible third
candidate for an Islamic WMD nation. But then, terror weapons don't
have to be high-tech. Maybe al-Qaeda has someone in Japan digging up
old meteorological charts...

More like a plot for the next thriller novel, though, than a real
threat. So instead of a mysterious "country X", I think we have to go
with thinking of Iran as the real threat for now.

John Savard

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article .com,
:Quadibloc wrote:
:It could happen at any moment, since the leadership of Iran has made
:it very clear that it is willing to attack Israel.
:
:No, they've made it very clear that they want us to think that.
:
:It's not at all the same thing.

It can, however, have the same effect. The problem with trying to
convince people you're a dangerous loon is that they just might
believe you and decide to do something about you...

--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

Pat Flannery wrote:

:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: But we don't see any huge tactical innovations in their methods of
: warfare.
:
:
:Except that now they are going to rely on sophisticated equipment rather
:than human wave attacks?
:Any country that's getting input from Russia on stealth fighter design
:might bear watching:
:http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=640
:It just struck me why that thing looks like it has a flying saucer stuck
:in its midsection.
:http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...q-image3-s.jpg
:http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img006/mig_i-2000_001.jpg
:That's the Russian plasma stealth generator to wrap the plane in ionized
:air that absorbs radar waves.
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth
:http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/10/19/stealth.shtml


Yeah, and then a miracle comes to pass...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
:In article .com,
:Quadibloc wrote:

:It could happen at any moment, since the leadership of Iran has made
:it very clear that it is willing to attack Israel.
:
:No, they've made it very clear that they want us to think that.
:
:It's not at all the same thing.

It can, however, have the same effect. The problem with trying to
convince people you're a dangerous loon is that they just might
believe you and decide to do something about you...

Furthermo dangerous loons do really exist, and so doing something
about those who appear to be dangerous loons is actually a rational
act.

The following incident happened right here in Edmonton only recently.

There were two guys on this bus (the number 5 trolley), arguing.

One guy says: "You gave me this cold. Give me your cold pills; I gotta
get to work."

The other guy says: "That's it. You're not getting to work today. I'm
going to stab you."

The driver puts them both off the bus.

The other guy really *does* stab the first guy. He dies.

Apparently, our police haven't even caught a suspect yet.

Presumably, bus drivers will now be instructed to take all threats of
violence _very_ seriously in future, and always put the guy who
threatens violence off the bus by himself rather than trying to defuse
the situation by appearing even-handed.

It is suicidal - especially after September 11 - to do anything *but*
assume the worst about anyone who may possibly be a dangerous loon,
and therefore take innocent lives. We cannot put innocent lives at
risk, because we don't have the power to resurrect the dead.

It should not have taken as many innocent people dying in Iraq as it
has before the U.S. decides to institute a draft, go to Iraq in
sufficient force to totally pacify the country, giving it a chance to
train its own security forces in peace. *Then* withdraw, once the
government we put in place is in *total control*. You don't hear of
anti-government rebels killing hundreds of people every day in North
Korea, do you? So peace is achievable.

John Savard

Pat Flannery wrote:
It looks like the Iraq Studies Group's recommendations are getting
implemented, and Cheney is no longer a major player.

That reminds me.

I can remember those long-ago innocent days...

when the office of the Vice-President of the United States of America
was thought to carry very little weight...

and, thus, the notion of an attempt to assasinate the *vice*-President
would be...

a joke.

23 people left dead is not funny.

The world has changed a great deal since the 1960s.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
It looks like the Iraq Studies Group's recommendations are getting
implemented, and Cheney is no longer a major player.

That reminds me.

I can remember those long-ago innocent days...

when the office of the Vice-President of the United States of America
was thought to carry very little weight...

and, thus, the notion of an attempt to assasinate the *vice*-President
would be...

a joke.

23 people left dead is not funny.

The world has changed a great deal since the 1960s.

Come to think of it, I think I even *remember* the joke. Even though I
can't Google it.

I think it went something like this:

"What's the difference between crazy and stupid, Daddy?"

"It's like this:

Someone tries to assassinate the President, he's _crazy_!

Someone tries to assassinate the vice-President, he's _stupid_!"

Doubtless this will jog someone's memory and a reference can be
supplied.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
ups.com...
It should not have taken as many innocent people dying in Iraq

Why is this a bad thing? Wouldn't it be a far worse world if those people
*deserved* what happened to them?

How about the innocent people killed by suicide bombers in Israel? Why do we
not hear dead Israelis referred to as "innocent"? Why don't we hear about
those killed in the Towers as "innocent"?

What has guilt or innocence got to do with collateral damage? The word
"innocent" is clearly being used to promote a political agenda rather than
being used as a legitimate descriptor. Without being able to examine the
individual lives of every victim, how can they accurately be called
"innocent"? Even children have been used to commit evil.

The word "innocent" has become as meaningless as the word "terrorist"
because of overuse and misuse in promoting agendas.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

What has guilt or innocence got to do with collateral damage? The word
"innocent" is clearly being used to promote a political agenda rather than
being used as a legitimate descriptor. Without being able to examine the
individual lives of every victim, how can they accurately be called
"innocent"? Even children have been used to commit evil.

It reminds of the people who were tallying up the number of "civilians"
killed by Israel in their war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Evidently any body
not in the official uniform of Hezbollah counted as a civilian.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn

Quadibloc wrote:
It should not have taken as many innocent people dying in Iraq as it
has before the U.S. decides to institute a draft,


You try that stunt and Bush and the gang are going to end up hanging
from the nearest tree, followed by every member of Congress who voted
for that draft.
Since you're from Canada, and we're obviously incapable of doing the
Iraq thing correctly, maybe it's time Canada institutes a draft and
cleans the mess up.

Pat