Just went through at 7:10PM PST like an effing freight train passing next door. Lasted for almost 2 hours 15 seconds. Heavy lateral movement. I'll be posting updates when news links form. Other Bay Area Ranntburgers, please check in. Definitely San Andreas fault and not the Hayward which is long overdue for a big snap. No damage here but the epicenter probably took a good hit. My wolf hybrid started whining big time a few minutes before the hit.
#3
You got it, Joe. Latest reports indicate the epicenter was in San Jose's eastside Alum Rock neighborhood with a magnitude 5.6 located on the Caleveras fault. Due to proximity, the severity was nearly as bad as the 7.0 of 1989. Fortunately, this time there was none of the vertical shear that made the Loma Prieta quake so devastating. Instead, there was lots of lateral oscillation that dissipated energy much less destructively.
My friend who lives in the Alum Rock area reported no damage so this one was a "good quake". You want lots of small quakes instead of one big shaker. Fortunately, my Victorian duplex survived the 1906 monster so I'm confident in riding these puppies out. The eerie "grinding" sound that arrives in sweeping subsonic waves still makes it hard to get a round toothpick up your asshole when it happens, but other than that, this one doesn't seem to have been too bad.
#4
See also NOWPUBLIC's worldwide quake category/portal - Quakes around ALASKA-ALEUTS, 2.5 on 10/30 in Greater Los Angeles Area, PAPUA NEW GUINEA. NOWPUBLIC Poster [paraph]- [another?]busy day for Earth's tectonic plates. GUAM STILL TREMORIN'.
#5
GUAM K57 > 7.2 MAGNITUDE QUAKE SHAKES GUAM. Indonesia-Sumatra seen in the sky - for the future. *RUMORMILLNEWS > SOMETHING BIG IS COMING. Yep, MADONNA SAYS SHE LOVES ISRAEL - descendant of ABRAHAM/ADAM???
#6
So here I was sitting at the office, 10 stories up and the jolt hits. Building sways side to side and I'm looking at the floor, ceiling and everything else literally move like a oversized slinky wobbling. Let me tell you this..when you're 10 stories up that 5.0 quake doesn't look like anything minor.
#7
*BREAKING* FREEREPUBLIC > Poster claims EXPLOSIONS OBSERVED ON PLANET MARS [NJ Obervatory]. Heading towards earth at high speeds. *FR > STRANGE LIGHTS AND EARTHQUAKE IN NEW JERSEY article.
#10
Lucky it is not coming Saturn, that would be methane... needless to say, that would be a horrible death, like falling into a planetary scale septic tank.
#11
Have you ever met that special someone, a whimmins who eyes locked on to yours and the exciting voltage between you both began to loop as if the two of you were predestined for each other?
Dejevu, It happened today all over again! There I was feeling really good, calm like I was locked into a dream state when she unbelievably took off her top and jumped up onto a Red Truck!.
Damn we were having a blast when out of the blue, SHE STRUCK, the Ground was shaking so rudely the Lock on our DREAM STATE WAS BROKEN!
Damn I hate THAT when it Happens!!
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
10/31/2007 4:30 Comments ||
Top||
#12
if that twerent shaggy enuff..just wait.. it twill come to pass..
~:)
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
10/31/2007 4:35 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Here's hoping that only things are broken, but people (and dogs and other pets) are ok. Stay safe, JosephM, and your dear mother. Zenster, thank you for informing us. Valentine, a good thing you were in a California-standards building. Red Dawg, you've my sympathies -- better luck next time. ;-)
You West Coast Rantburgers will be in my thoughts today.
#15
Zenster, now I know why you are known as Rock-n-Roll.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
10/31/2007 7:32 Comments ||
Top||
#16
You's got know, that somewhere in that population, some dad just told his kid to pull on his finger. That kid won't be right for the rest of his/her life. :)
#18
Valentine, a good thing you were in a California-standards building.
You could not be more right, trailing wife. Subsequent to the 1906 catastrophe, California put in place some of the most comprehensive and stringent civil codes regarding earthquake preparedness and structural regulations. Even simple things are seen to, like making sure that regional fire departments have all the correct hydrant adapters on each truck.
Fortunately, my Victorian had its old mud-sill foundation completely reworked over to rebar reinforced backfilled cinderblock complete with French drains. This old domicile can take quite a rattling and come through in fine fettle. There is nothing like a redwood framed house for flexing instead of cracking. During my recent remodel, I managed to redesign all of the cabinetry so it is coaxial with the local faults. That way things move side-to-side instead of having cupboard doors swing open as they belch their contents onto the floor. In the 7.0 of 1989, I lost over 40% of my vintage Pyrex collection that way. My kitchen was ankle deep in broken glass.
#19
You want lots of small quakes instead of one big shaker.
lots of small quakes precede and follow big ones.
Subsequent to the 1906 catastrophe, California put in place some of the most comprehensive and stringent civil codes regarding earthquake preparedness and structural regulations.
Not quite. As the linked article indicates, the building code was, if anything, loosened after the '06 quake as part of the effort to demonstrate to east coast money that the big one was mostly fire damage and SF should be rebuilt. Code tightening didn't start until the '30s.
Having left quake country for Quaker country, I am no longer fully up to date, but I'd bet Peace of Mind in Earthquake Country is still the best layman's book for scientific background and preparedness.
As I recall from the '75 edition, the most dangerous city in the country, considering both building code and quake potential, was Salt Lake City.
#25
That way things move side-to-side instead of having cupboard doors swing open as they belch their contents onto the floor. In the 7.0 of 1989, I lost over 40% of my vintage Pyrex collection that way. My kitchen was ankle deep in broken glass.
Ow.
I'm given to understand you can buy "Pyrex" these days but it isn't real borosilicate glass any more.
#28
Harry Reid said the fires that burned my neighborhood were because of global warming. I'm sure he's preparing a speech to blame you people in NoCal and your dirty SUV's for causing this tremor. He's out of touch. We all know its really the wrath of Allan...
#29
We have a house up in the hills on the east side of the San Francisco bay that we're currently renting out .... didn't hear of any damage there. But that house is on bedrock & was unscathed by the 87 quake.
Pyrex bowls were originally made of something called borosilicate glass, which is very resistant to thermal shock. Currently, Pyrex is made of soda-lime glass, presumably as a cost-cutting measure, as soda-lime glass is very inexpensive. Also, Pyrex is no longer made by the original manufacturer, and is essentially a brand name, rather than a material.
Great way to completely destroy one of the great American brand names. Corning must be beyond stupid to have allowed this to happen. Thank goodness I have always collected the 1930s - 1960s colored bowls and refrigerator "jars". Most of you will remember them from your grandmother's kitchen.
I have the refrigerator "jars" in every size and almost all colors of the rainbow. I use them as color coded salsa dishes so people will know the heat of each preparation.
My collection also includes two pristine examples of the incredibly rare Pyrex cornbread pan, which I also have in cast iron and very rare WWI aluminum as well.
I rarely pay more than $5.00 per piece with an average purchase price of $1.00. I also have oodles of the clear pyrex in all shapes and sizes. You can tell the oldest pieces by their serif font on the maker's mark. I refuse to buy any of the modern crap as it is both ugly and, now, unreliable. According to eBay prices, the collection I've bought for a few hundred dollars is worth a few thousand by now. Thrift shops and flear markets are your friends.
lotp, your property in San Francisco is likely unaffected. My friend lived within a mile or so of the epicenter and his house suffered no damage.
#32
Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Dogs and cats living together..... We're trapped!!! Trapped, I tell ya! Like Mars Flies in a Klein Bottle!
Hang in there, Joe! I can send you some handicap grab bars to mount to the wall near your desk, like I've got, to have something to hold onto when the BIG ONE hits.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/31/2007 16:30 Comments ||
Top||
#33
I thought it was Queen Latifa and Refrigerator Perry Slam Dancing.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
10/31/2007 16:41 Comments ||
Top||
#34
I live in Marin and I didn't feel it. Not even a whisker. I heard a strange noise though, sort of like a critter under the house. That was it. No idea if it was related or not. I guess I'm just not seeeeeeeensitive.
#35
How can you tell which kind of Pyrex you have?
One the bottom of every piece is a production code encircling the Pyrex logo. There are some collector's guides that probably list what the number groups mean.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the older clear Pyrex pieces have the logo printed in a very distinctive serif font as compared to their modern products. Between that, and collecting the old colorful shades like in the above images, I am usually assured of getting the older items. Fortunately, the newer designs are quite repugnant so I've never even considered collecting them. Other than using a spectrophotometer or energy dispersive x-ray analyzer to distinguish between the boron and sodium content, I really couldn't tell you how to go about it.
#37
I felt that one last night while lying in bed suffering from my latest bout with arthritis (that's what the doctor in the ER diagnosed it as today rather than gout). Felt a short, rolling, up & down jolt followed by a prolonged SW to NE shaking - felt like there was an 18-wheeler rumbling right outside the house walls. Lasted about 10 second or so here.
I live in Antioch, well NE and inland of Alum Rock and the last time I felt anything like this one was during the 1989 Loma Prieta quake (that one was scary) and another one back in 1986.
When I was working at LBNL, one of my nightmares was working when the big one hit on the Hayward fault which ran about 50 yards to the west of the Lab's main gate. The guys last night said it;s due (average is a big quake on the Hayward fault every 140 years and it;s been 139 years since the last one).
I managed to be outside for that one and the weird grinding sound of the plates rubbing up against each other sounded like satan growling. It can be truly disconcerting when terra firma is no longer quite so firma.
#1
THE AMERICAN ATTEMPTS to rehabilitate the Yemeni regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh have not succeeded. Yemeni authorities recently pardoned Jamal Al-Badawi, convicted mastermind of the 2000 USS Cole bombing. All the terrorists who bombed the American warship and killed 17 American sailors are free, except those dead or in U.S. custody.
Jamal Al-Badawi was originally sentenced to death in 2004 as the lead planner of the USS Cole bombing. The sentence was reduced to 15 years. He escaped twice, the last time in February 2006. He has been on the loose since. He spent less than three years physically inside a jail, where, by the way, he was very well treated. One of the FBI's top ten most wanted terrorists; he is currently at home receiving well wishers.
Yemeni President Saleh says openly that he has a truce with al Qaeda. However, it's more than a truce; it's a mutual support pact. That pact is long standing, mutually beneficial, and responsible for much of the carnage around the world, including the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
Yemen's president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, just made my Terrorist Top 40 hitlist. These sick fucks need to die ever so badly. We most definitely need to go in and cap Al-Badawi. Few better targets exist outside of Iran that could provide such an instructive object lesson to the Islamic world.
If you were Vladimir Putin, what would you think of Iran? You'd worry a lot about it, that's what. Your own Russia is losing Russians, due to the usual grim demography that characterizes most of Europe. And, like the others, you've got a Muslim problem, with surging birthrates both within Russia and all along its borders, from Chechnya to the stans. Lots of those Muslims are under Iranian sway. You know that well, having been trained in, and elevated by, the KGB, which was horrified to see radical mullahs and imams receiving money, Korans, and even weapons from the Islamic Republic. When Osama bin Laden claims that the defeat of the Soviet Empire was an Islamic victory, there's a certain element of truth to his words, and you know that the Iranians want to build on that foundation to extend their power deeper into your domain.
You therefore want to see this regime destroyed. The last thing in the world that you want is a gigantic Chechnya, armed with nuclear weapons, launching waves of fanatical terrorists against infidels like you.
But you don't have much of an army any more, and anyway you don't want a war with the mullahs. Direct attack is not your way; you prefer cunning. You'd rather have someone else do your dirty work for you. Someone like Israel, or better yet, the United States. And best of all would be to get the Americans to do it in such a way that the whole world condemns them for it.
#1
STRATEGYPAGE > French semi-privat consortium helping Russia in the design of better Russ submarines. You just know Russ will never opt/plan to use 'em against USA-NATO.
#2
If I was Putin I'd probably follow a similar plan.
I'd also try to promote an increased birthrate as the Chinese did at one time. I'd also promote immigration to Siberia amungst the Indians and Latin Americans hoping for some kind of land rush to populate the region before the Chinese start eying it.
I'd also talk to the Japanese, give them those pesky islands back in turn for investment in a new bullet transiberian railway.
I'd also stop bullying everyone and try to become the prefered military of the Europeans. That is European cash + Russian peacekeepers equals a foreign policy both sides could hopefully deal with and feel like grown up governments.
I would also end the draft and try to create a private military closer to what the US did.
I would try to SELL my old nuclear assets for some cash. That includes rusting naval ships as well as nuclear weapons. Let environmental groups and such guilt the world into paying you to prevent reactors from rusting out and polluting the arctic.
I would link up with South Africa to spread Pebble Bed nuke reactors around the globe, using this peaceful means as a basis for my eventual alliance.
In Americas darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror. But that was then.
Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns.
So tell us Paul, what exactly is 'reasoned, justified terror' the French Revolution?
Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran as soon as it is logistically possible.
Norm's a smart guy, and he understands that stopping Iran is of paramount importance to our own security. Now maybe bombing today is right or maybe it's wrong we at the Burg have dffering opinions on that. But the Chicken Littles who think that Short Round is just misguided are deluding themselves.
Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11. The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes. Indeed, Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.
Eurabia is a stretch modestly but the rest of us is a reasonable set of conclusions given the data at hand. You'd hope Paul would put forth a reasoned counter-argument. You'd be wrong. Keep reading.
Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?
For one thing, there isnt actually any such thing as Islamofascism its not an ideology; its a figment of the neocon imagination.
Krugman displays his idiot gene. The islamicists are clearly Islamic, and they're just as clearly fascist in their ideology. State control of all enterprises, a non-democratic form of government led by a select few, total loss of personal freedoms, glorification of the State (Caliphate) and the denigration of an underclass (the infidels, especially the Jooooz) are the very hallmarks of fascism. I think I'm batting 1.000 here. And Paul isn't.
The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didnt.
Now who's conflating the two? Most intelligent people understood that Osama attacked us, whereas Saddam a) attacked an ally (Kuwait), b) wanted to attack the Saudis, c) canoodled with various terrorist groups d) worked on WMD and e) wanted death to Israel, so long as he didn't get slapped doing it. One attacked us directly, the other was poised to do great damage to us. We didn't wise up to Osama until it was too late. We would have been foolish to wait around for Saddam to take his chance against us.
And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.
Sorta, for a while, until it became better policy for them to fund and supply the Taliban. The Iranians were scared to death in early 2002 they saw American rage and worried that it would be directed against them, not Saddam. And perhaps we should have done that differently. But Iran has been our enemy since 1979. They've been killing Americans, and funding groups that kill Americans, and killing Europeans from that day forward. Krugman forgets that. We don't.
Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous.
Global domination today? Ludicrous. But the neo-cons aren't claiming that. Iran wants regional domination. To do that they need to shove us out of the Middle East, destroy Israel, and cow the various Arab regimes in the region. Global domination will wait til they've achieved the first big step in their plan.
Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, ...
... glad you noticed ...
... and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons.
Why is that, Paul? What's the big deal? If they aren't evil, then Iran having nuclear weapons is no worse than the French having them. But if they are evil, then letting them acquire nukes is idiocy on our part. You can't have it both ways.
But lets have some perspective, please: were talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Swedens.
What technology has done the past sixty years is precisely our worst fear: in the 1940s only the wealthiest nation-states could afford to discover, design and build nuclear weapons. In the 2000s states of relatively modest means can do so. Look at Pakistan, even more a basket-case in economic terms compared to Iran, and they (with a lot of help from nefarious other states) have the bomb. Notice that Iran is getting help from the same nefarious types. You don't need a top-ten GDP to build a bomb. The technology and theory is widely-understood. The needed help is around. All that remains are straight-forward issues of engineering and construction. That's the point.
Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees and bombing is the only option, since weve run out of troops is pure wishful thinking.
That's perhaps true, and that's a debate here. I'd prefer Uncle Sam to be the Great Satan and institute a reign of terror against the Mad Mullahs. Whack them. Blow stuff up without getting caught. Encourage insurrection. Arm rebels. Speak out and protect dissidents. Use propaganda. Let's do all those things and see if we can bring the Mullahs down, because down they must go.
And if that doesn't work, bomb the beJeebus out of them.
Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead.
Only because we in the West restrained their hand at the end ...
Theres every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.
From which the Iranians would not benefit. And we're not going to be so dumb as to bomb the Iranian population, nor will we invade. If we whack the nuclear sites we could well destabilize the Mad Mullahs. That's not a sure thing and that's part of the debate. But by no means will we drive the Iranian people to the Mullahs, unless we target the people.
Mr. Podhoretz, in short, is engaging in what my relatives call crazy talk. Yet he is being treated with respect by the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination. And Mr. Podhoretzs rants are, if anything, saner than some of what weve been hearing from some of Mr. Giulianis rivals.
Yes, if you want sanity and coherence in a presidential campaign just go visit the Breck Boy ...
Thus, in a recent campaign ad Mitt Romney asserted that America is in a struggle with people who aim to unite the world under a single jihadist Caliphate. To do that they must collapse freedom-loving nations. Like us.
Which is essentially correct.
He doesnt say exactly who these jihadists are, but presumably hes referring to Al Qaeda an organization that has certainly demonstrated its willingness and ability to kill innocent people, but has no chance of collapsing the United States, let alone taking over the world.
And why is that? Why is it that al-Qaeda has been neutered in so many ways, Paul? Who did that? How did that happen?
And Mike Huckabee, whom reporters like to portray as a nice, reasonable guy, says that if Hillary Clinton is elected, Im not sure well have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this countrys ever faced in Islamofascism. Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power which arent even allies pose a greater danger than Hitlers panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.
Because FDR, the president you quoted at the beginning, had a spine, even though he had polio. He understood the dangers of fascism and communism and faced up to them. It isn't entirely clear that Hillary would, nor is it clear that she would rally support if she tried to. She's pretty much an amoral person, and you generally don't look to amoral people for leadership.
All of this would be funny if it werent so serious.
In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.
Because we pretty much were. It's easy in retrospect to laugh off al-Qaeda. But in late 2001 al-Qaeda had a national base of operations (Afghanistan), several ten thousand trained military and paramilitary personnel, and operating cells in most Western countries. It seems obvious today that we could get into their heads, roll up operations, toss them from Afghanistan, and go after them in places from Iraq to Somalia to Paraguay. But it sure wasn't obvious on 9/12.
Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administrations rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the bases older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general.
The racist canard. How despicable you are, Professor Krugman.
And the base is looking for a candidate who shares this fear.
The 'base' is looking for someone with a spine, with a heart, and with hope for the future. None of the Dhimmicrats have all three.
Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program.
Then why write this piece? Norman Podhoretz is right by your admission. What Paul really wants to do is set the stage for Hillary: yes, Iran is bad, yes, Iran having nukes is bad, and we'll start to do something (who knows what) about it in January, 2009, when the 'sensible' Hillary comes forth to negotiate without preconditions and all that rot. Doesn't help Hilary at all if the Mad Mullahs are taken down before the election.
But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of Americas two great political parties.
And it's the Dhimmicrats who are in fear that Americans will wake up and recognize their responsibilities. They'd rather we all hit the snooze button and go back to the 1990s so that they can engineer our society to their liking. National health insurance. College for everyone. Fluffy bunnies in every garage. They are, to borrow Bill Whittle's analogy, pink, and they want a completely pink society.
The world is gray right now. Rudy sees it, as do Mitt, Fred, Huck and Johnny Mac. Krugman, and Hillary, and Breck Boy, and Obama do not. There's your choice in the election, folks.
#1
"it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didnt."
-obviously Krugman's an idiot. Hussein's violation of HR 687 gave us the right to depose him. Not doing so would've been stupid - case closed. I could care less about the WMD argument. 17 violations of the ceasefire agreement over a 12 yr period easily equates regime change imho. Wake up America.
#2
Poor Professor Krugman. How it must hurt his soul to know that his fellow academics scorn him so. Even the balm of New York Times approbation (and payment!) is not enough to soothe (with an e, for Red Dawg) such red-hot piercing pain.
#3
Why read him or listen to him? He only sings to the choir and off-key at that. I refuse to read him, Dowd, Rich, Herbert, hell even Bill Safire has gone Stockholm through his employment. Krugman is another of the left-wing economics professors who saw that it was easier to be an 8 year Bush basher than teach at Princeton or consult for Enron. In fact, in as this 2002-2003 research shows, he is the biggest sufferer of BDS in the world (even more than our buddy Iamanutjob). My gut feeling is he is out of work Jan.21st 2009.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/31/2007 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Oh, I forgot. Great Fisking, Delphi.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/31/2007 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"In Americas darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror. But that was then.
[...]
But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of Americas two great political parties."
If Krugman had filled the [...] with a devastating indictment of the liberals' incessant, breathless fear-mongering over "global warming", with all the "Planet in Peril" bullshit, this could have been a good article.
Instead, we get this lame jackass's pathetic attempt to deny a blatantly obvious and immediate menace.
Lame, sick and stupid.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/31/2007 14:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If Krugman had filled the [...] with a devastating indictment of the liberals' incessant, breathless fear-mongering over "global warming", with all the "Planet in Peril" bullshit, this could have been a good article.
The donks have been engaging in bait and switch and Ponzi scheme politics for sometime now--promising one thing and giving another. Distracting voters from the real issues by creating bogus issues.
#7
Jack, the salmon fisker is Steve White. Were it Delphi, the comments would have been in darker-than-post-it-note yellow. I'm trying to be good -- Dr. Steve is clearly in a mood. ;-)
#9
"Hussein's violation of HR 687 gave us the right to depose him."
Thanks for pointing this out. Even Krugman's hero Bill Clinton has said this on several occasions.
Krugman is a post-modernist, Christian-hating, cultural Marxist boomer ideologue. His opinions are not informed by the truth but rather by an intellectually lazy need to perpetuate the comfortable demons of his youth and the all-important n-a-a-a-a-rative of his middle age and dotage.
Every person - every single one - who "thinks" as he does is an anti-intellectual and a threat to Western civilization.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/31/2007 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#1
He is still using the Iraq strategy for a very different country. And while the strategy is similar, it must be both far more comprehensive and less extended. That is, it must:
1) Destroy Iran's existing nuclear infrastructure.
2) Reduce Iran's military and IRGC.
3) Prevent Iran from reconstituting its nuclear infrastructure, and
4) Prevent Iran from menacing the world oil trade.
And I've said several times what this would entail.
#2
So George Friedman, we are faced with a nuclear armed Iran, what do you propose we do? You have written a long article about what we can't and shouldn't do. What can and should we do?
I know we should and cannot allow a nuclear armed Iran--particularly since Ahmadinejad has threatened the U.S. and threatened to wipe out Israel (easier said than done). It is likely this technology would be developed and farmed out to stateless terrorists.
#3
Let's begin with goals. What would the United States hope to achieve by attacking Iran? On the broadest strategic level, the answer is actually quite simple.
The problem with most people offering deep thought on strategy is to make everything unnecessarily complicated. The notion any US administration has the wit to "disrupt all Islamic centers of power" is absurd. If anything, the over-riding goal of this administration's policy has been to prevent anything that might trouble the pond of the Saud terror entity starting with the flight of bin Laden's relatives out of the United States on the day everything except military aircraft had been grounded.
The point of an attack on Iran is not to move chess pieces around some nerd strategy simulator. It is to prevent Dark Ages maniacs from having nuclear weapons. That's it. If the Qom regime can be overthrown in the process that is bonus and extra. It is by no means necessary. It is not our job to clean house in the islamic world; their cesspit is of their own devising. It is in our interest to prevent barbarians from threatening to massacre us with the weapons our science and inventiveness has bequeathed to us. It seems we have loss the stomach to simply nuke these savages into oblivion and do the same for anyone else who so much as twitches the wrong way. More's the pity.
#5
E: If anything, the over-riding goal of this administration's policy has been to prevent anything that might trouble the pond of the Saud terror entity starting with the flight of bin Laden's relatives out of the United States on the day everything except military aircraft had been grounded.
Umm, this was Richard Clarke freelancing. The fact is that not every decision in this country has to be personally approved by the president. This is why we can respond so quickly to unexpected events - decentralized decision-making by subordinates, rather than endless rounds of proposals circulated by courtiers to the president. But it is also why decisions are made and things happen that the president knows nothing about. It's the nature of American government.
She's back. Hurrah! She's a woman. She's brave. She's a moderate. She speaks good English. She's Oxford-educated, no less. And she's not bad looking either.
I admit I'm biased. I don't like Benazir Bhutto. She called me names during her election campaign in 1996 and it left a bitter taste. Petty personal grievances aside, I still find jubilant reports of her return to Pakistan depressing. Let's be clear about this before she's turned into a martyr.
This is no Aung San Suu Kyi, despite her repeated insistence that she's "fighting for democracy", or even more incredibly, "fighting for Pakistan's poor".
This is the woman who was twice dismissed on corruption charges. She went into self-imposed exile while investigations continued into millions she had allegedly stashed away into Swiss bank accounts ($1.5 billion by the reckoning of Musharraf's own "National Accountability Bureau").
She has only been able to return because Musharraf, that megalomaniac, knows that his future depends on the grassroots diehard supporters inherited from her father's party, the PPP.
As a result, Musharraf, who in his first months in power declared it his express intention to wipe out corruption, has dropped all charges against her and granted her immunity from prosecution. Forever.
Notably, he did not do the same for his other political rival, Nawaz Sharif, who was recently deported after attempting his own spectacular return to Pakistan.
But the difference is that Benazir is a pro at playing to the West. And that's what counts. She talks about women and extremism and the West applauds. And then conspires.
The Americans and the British are acutely aware that their strategy in the region is failing and that Musharraf's hold on power is ever more tenuous. They have pressed hard for Benazir and the General to cut a deal that would allow them to share power for the next five years in a "liberal forces government".
It's all totally bogus. Benazir may speak the language of liberalism and look good on Larry King's sofa, but both her terms in office were marked by incompetence, extra-judicial killings and brazen looting of the treasury, with the help of her husband famously known in Pakistan as Mr 10 Per Cent.
In a country that tops the international corruption league, she was its most self-enriching leader.
Benazir has always cynically used her gender to manipulate: I loved her answer to David Frost when he asked her how many millions she had in her Swiss bank accounts. "David, I think that's a very sexist question."
A non sequitur (does loot have a gender?) but one that brought the uncomfortable line of questioning to a swift end.
Of all Pakistan's elected leaders she conspicuously did the least to help the cause of women. She never, for example, repealed the Hudood Ordinances, Pakistan's controversial laws that made no distinction between rape and adultery.
She preferred instead to kowtow to the mullahs in order to cling to power, forming an expedient alliance with Pakistan's Religious Coalition Party and leaving Pakistan's women as powerless as she found them.
The problem is that the West never seems to learn; playing favourites in a complicated nation's politics always backfires. Imposing Benazir on Pakistan is the opposite of democratic and doubtless will cause more chaos in an already unstable country.
Make no mistake, Benazir may look the part, but she's as ruthless and conniving as they come a kleptocrat in a Hermes headscarf.
Posted by: john frum ||
10/31/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The problem is that the West never seems to learn; playing favourites in a complicated nation's politics always backfires.
The problem is that the West never seems to learn; there's nothing salvageable in any Islamic country.
Why are you still using Imran's name? You are divorced. Your supposed to be hooked up with Hugh Grant. Its just not cricket for you to get back involved in Pakistan affairs (even though you've had a few misunderstandings being an art thief and all). Tut.tut.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/31/2007 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And here, I was raised to believe that the Irish only fought amongst themselves because they had no other worthy opponents!
Posted by: Mike ||
10/31/2007 11:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Kevin Myers is usually pretty funny and biting. He is sort of a cross between Mark Steyn and John Leo. I have always enjoyed his writing even if I don't agree with him from time to time. But he does have a lot of good points here that I am glad socialistic Euros (and he is one) are picking up on. Managing these intercince conflicts, ala Bill Bob Clinton, are fret with danger both political and physical for your troops. I will bet you a pint of Guinness that they will not be armored or given weapons and if given weapons will not have ammo and if they have ammo they will have more restrictive RoE than our border patrol. Plus they are under a French command. Even the Irish have a hard time stomaching that. Surprisingly, he didn't suggest letting the US or NATO do this duty. I always thought that Darfur was Bush's fault anyway.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/31/2007 13:54 Comments ||
Top||
Here's my game. Guess what this CNN series is about:
(a) the Existential Threat to the West of Radical Islam;
(b) a Gigantic Meteor Hurtling Towards Earth; or
(c) the Black Market Trade in Endangered Species.
Haven't watched the accompanying series, but I have heard the ominous theme music. It's an Anderson Cooper thing, so I'm sure meticulous fact-checking will accompany his condescending sneer/scowl, just like it did with his post-Katrina reporting.
Posted by: Tibor ||
10/31/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
With that headline, Tibor, I thought CNN and Will Wright were collaborating. Oops.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
10/31/2007 1:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Modern News Entertainment industry survives on selling fear. Blood and guts in print or on the screen at 10. They caught on to why people 'pay' to go to movies to watch scary things or variations of sadomasochistic treatment of their fellow man. It's the modern version of the Roman Circus. These producers would have been jolly clowns during the Dark Ages and the Plagues when things really were bad. Oh, wait, the Church[tm] had that monopoly back then to use the world around them to rationalize their power and the need for people to blindly obey them. Never mind.
#5
Most likely not about (a). Probably some PC thingee such as (c). (b) is off-limits; don't want to create an Orson Wells "War of the Worlds" debacle and have people jumping off roofs. CNN doesn't have enough lawyers for that.
#4
A Zogby poll was reported today at Drudge that indicated that something like 52% of the American people were in favor of stopping Iran's nuclear weapon program.
The U.S. doesn't get any oil from Iran. It is not about Iran's oil. It must be that a majority of Americans understand the stakes involved. Maybe it is just the Democratically-controlled Congress that doesn't get it because they are too busy hammering away at GWB.
#5
Iran is supplying oil to somebody, and when Iran dries up for them they will start buying oil from the same folks that the US does. Unless the US takes over Iran's oil fields and pumps them dry to compensate the world for the grief they have inflicted on it.
Gwynne Dyer, Arab News
Fifteen months ago, the armed wing of Lebanons Hezbollah party, listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and most other Western countries, attacked Israels northern border, capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing eight more. Israel replied with a month of massive air attacks all across Lebanon that destroyed much of the countrys infrastructure, leveled a good deal of south Beirut, and killed around a thousand Lebanese civilians.
Washington, London, Ottawa and some other Western capitals insisted that this was a reasonable and proportionate response, and shielded Israel from intense diplomatic pressure to stop the attacks even when Israel launched a land invasion of southern Lebanon in early August, 2006. The operation only ended when Israeli casualties on the ground mounted rapidly and the Israeli government pulled its troops back.
So what would be a reasonable and proportionate Turkish response to the recent attacks by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and most other Western countries, from northern Iraq into southeastern Turkey? More than forty Turkish civilians and soldiers have been killed in these attacks over the past two weeks, and a further eight Turkish soldiers were captured.
Well, it would be unreasonable for Turkey to bomb Iraq, where the PKKs bases are, for any more than one month. It would be quite disproportionate for the Turkish Air Force to level more than a small part of Baghdad say, 15,000 homes. Ideally, it should leave Baghdad alone and restrict itself to destroying some Kurdish-populated city in northern Iraq near Turkeys own border. Moreover, when the Turks do invade Iraq on the ground, they should restrict themselves to the northern border strip where the PKKs bases are.
Whats that? Washington is asking Turkey to show restraint and not attack Iraq at all? Even after the Kurdish terrorists killed or kidnapped all those Turkish people? Could it be that Turkish lives are worth less than Israeli lives?
Never mind. At least the United States officially classes the PKK as a terrorist organization and refuses to let its officials have any contact with it. But whats this? There is a parallel terrorist organization called the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), essentially a branch office of the PKK, also based in northern Iraq, which carries out attacks into the adjacent Kurdish-populated region of Iran, and the United States does not condemn the PJAK? It even sends its officials to have friendly chats with the PJAK terrorists? How odd!
The PJAKs leader, Rahman Haj-Ahmadi, paid an unofficial visit to Washington last summer. One of his close associates, Biryar Gabar, claims to have normal dialogue with US officials, according to a report last Tuesday in the New York Times and the American military spokesman in Baghdad, Cmdr. Scott Rye, issued a carefully structured nondenial saying that The consensus is that US forces are not working with or advising the PJAK.
Biryar Gabar also said that PJAK fighters have killed at least 150 Iranian soldiers and officials in the past three months. Thats a lot more people than the PKK have killed in Turkey in the same time, and yet neither Washington nor any other Western country has expressed sympathy for Iran. Could it be that Iranian lives are worth even less than Turkish lives?
And heres something even more peculiar. Iran, like Turkey, is already shelling Kurdish villages on the Iraqi side of the frontier that it suspects of sheltering or supplying the PKK/PJAK. How come President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney simply ignore these actions, when they have been working hard for the past year to build a case for attacking Iran? As Pat Buchanan noted on MSNBCs Hardball last week: Cheney and Bush are laying down markers for themselves which theyre going to have to meet. I dont see how.
The US military assets for an attack on Iran are all in place, so it cant be that. Maybe the delay means that Bush and Cheney are having difficulty in persuading the military professionals to go along with this hare-brained scheme. Most senior American military officers see an attack on Iran as leading to inevitable failure and humiliation for the United States, and the last thing the White House wants is a rash of US generals resigning in protest when it orders the attack.
On the other hand, Bush is still the commander-in-chief, and how many American generals resigned when he committed the somewhat lesser folly of invading Iraq? Only one, and he did it very quietly.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/31/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[15 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
OP-ED > UN MUST MAKE ISRAEL GIVE UP NUKES, OR ACCEPT SYRIAN, IRAN PROGRAMS. You just know Israel is gonna agree.
#3
Could it be that Turkish lives are worth less than Israeli lives?
Frankly, yes. The Turks have indulged in genocide and made their state one of an increasingly Islamist nature. Synagogues are being bombed and little is being done to halt the encroaching Muslim prediliction for shari'a law. One need only examine how many mosques are being bombed in Israel for some sort of contrast.
Could it be that Iranian lives are worth even less than Turkish lives?
Wow! We've got ourselves a regular frickin' female Einstein, here. Yes, Iran has committed or caused so many direct violations of international law and crimes against humanity that their people rate right up there with pond scum. Too bad for decent and honorable Persians, but there's this niggling little issue with overthrowing an oppressive government or being tarred with the same brush. Tough effin' noogies.
#6
"... (PJAK), essentially a branch office of the PKK, also based in northern Iraq, which carries out attacks into the adjacent Kurdish-populated region of Iran, and the United States does not condemn the PJAK?"
As much as Dwyer is a pompous pain in the ass that historically projects opinions as fact, its difficult to refute the central point of this argument. PJAK is, by most accepted definitions, a terrorist organization. Turning a blind eye isnt necessarily the same thing as condoning their practices. But its not a quantum stretch to speculate that there may be more of a cozy relationship here. In fact, one has to wonder if some of the dough that the USDoS said was going to un-named political organizations that promote political reform in Iran has found its way into the coffers of PJAK.
#7
Could it be that German Iranian lives are worth even less than British Turkish lives?
To a rational person, even though the Brits ran an 'Empire' with subject people [and we have all witnessed what those subject people, particularly in Africa have done with their independence], in the circa early 1940s based upon the behaviors of the Germans, YES.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
In Americas darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror. But that was then. 
She's back. Hurrah! She's a woman. She's brave. She's a moderate. She speaks good English. She's Oxford-educated, no less. And she's not bad looking either.
Here's my game. Guess what this CNN series is about: 
