Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bah Bah Bah, Bomb Bomb Iran
Earlier today, Radley put up a short blog about the Stu Bykofsky column which says another 9/11 style attack on the United States would unify the country and refocus its policies on terror, the true threat to America.
As evidenced by the expanded eavesdropping bill that just made it through a Congress that gives the DOJ more unchecked power — see E.J. Dionne's rationalization for this latest instance of Democrats' callow incompetence here — another 9/11 attack would only embolden the government to encroach upon our civil liberties more and probably lead to more bloodshed worldwide.
Remember, one of the things that 'united us' in the days following 9/11 was bloodlust. Vengeance went hand-in-hand with the fervent patriotism in the bars and at the water coolers across the nation. If there was even the slightest bit of evidence linking a domestic attack to Iran — or if a tie could be made up — a four- or five-digit death toll would be more than enough to override common sense and skepticism against an invasion.
Attack or no, Cheney & co. are getting ready.
|8.10.07 @ 3:41PM|#
They have to give a shout out to all us RISK-obsessed basement dwellers once in a while.
Alice Bowie|8.10.07 @ 3:43PM|#
If we're goin 2 bomb iran...we better do it b-4 they get WMDs..
B-cause once they have WMDs...they can rest-asure that US nor
ISRAEL will mess with them.
Hey, Here's one 4 u:
Do u know u can prove that GW Bush knew IRAQ had NO
WMDs...we invaded.
obviously, we would never invade a country with WMD We
never have (N. Korea, Russia, China)
|8.10.07 @ 3:43PM|#
I'd like to see less stupid political inserts in the White
House.
The latest line is - no, seriously, I'm not making this up - that
the Iranians are backing the Taliban.
The Taliban, who slaughtered the Iranian embassy staff when they
took Kabul in the 1990s.
The Taliban, who ruthlessly persecuted Afghanistan's Persian and
Shiite minorities.
The Iranians, who agreed to assist us in our war against the
Taliban by closing their border and, if necessary, rescuing our
downed pilots.
How stupid do they think we are?
|8.10.07 @ 3:45PM|#
The latest line is - no, seriously, I'm not making this up -
that the Iranians are backing the Taliban.
The Taliban, who slaughtered the Iranian embassy staff when they
took Kabul in the 1990s.
The Taliban, who ruthlessly persecuted Afghanistan's Persian and
Shiite minorities.
The Iranians, who agreed to assist us in our war against the
Taliban by closing their border and, if necessary, rescuing our
downed pilots.
They also suggested Saddam Hussein, a secular fascist, was in bed
with Osama bin Laden. So no, this doesn't surprise me one bit.
Alice Bowie|8.10.07 @ 3:50PM|#
We (the USA) have slept with ALL OF THEM...we are TEAM AMERICA...World Prostitute
|8.10.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Really good! The "Not News" Icon for Fox was certainly appropriate cuz when it comes to foreign matters they are indeed not news but rather, propaganda.
|8.10.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Cesar,
A Taliban/Tehran connection is even dumber than a Saddam/Al Qaeda
connection. There were never hostilities between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda never staged attacks against Iraqi interests. Iraq never
helped us wage a war against bin Laden. The theorists of Wahabbi
Islam never declared Arab Nationalists to be infidels.
An Iranian/al Qaeda connection is like a Saddam/al Qaeda connection
times fifty.
|8.10.07 @ 3:58PM|#
Actually, I heard someone from the administration say that Iran was fairly well behaved in Afghanistan. Though he also said that talking about Iran as a monolith is crazy. Some parts of the Iranian government apparently are suspected of giving weapons and money to the Taliban (today's version, that is), just not in any major way. No one ever said that Iran is easy to pigeonhole.
|8.10.07 @ 3:59PM|#
The Iranians, who agreed to assist us in our war against the
Taliban by closing their border and, if necessary, rescuing our
downed pilots.
How stupid do they think we are?
We are now at war with Eurasia. We are allies with Eastasia.
thoreau|8.10.07 @ 3:59PM|#
An Iranian/al Qaeda connection is like a Saddam/al Qaeda
connection times fifty.
Times fifty? Why, that's...I don't even know what that is!
|8.10.07 @ 4:00PM|#
joe:
The latest line is - no, seriously, I'm not making this up -
that the Iranians are backing the Taliban.
Yeah, and when Hamid Karzai expressed his gratitude for the Iranian
assistance in fighting the Taliban, the Bush administration and the
neocon propaganda machine went into frantic truth suppression
mode!
(Thunderstorm in Denver area-gota power down for now)
|8.10.07 @ 4:00PM|#
The Iranian government is a lot like the old Soviet Union. Their structure of government is so convoluted its difficult for an outsider to tell who is in charge.
|8.10.07 @ 4:00PM|#
How stupid do they think we are?
In a couple of months, if they start claiming that Iranians eat
puppies, we'll know.
thoreau|8.10.07 @ 4:03PM|#
In a couple of months, if they start claiming that Iranians
eat puppies, we'll know.
You know, marinaded in Shiraz and cooked with cumin, puppy is
actually quite tasty.
(I keed! I keed!)
Fluffy|8.10.07 @ 4:03PM|#
I am convinced that sometime next year, whether there is another
terrorist attack or not, the Bush administration will attack
Iran.
It is virtually certain that the Republican nominee will be far
behind in the polls at that point, and the White House will be in a
panic regarding the need to "do something" about Iran before "those
appeasers" get into the White House.
Terror attack or no terror attack, diplomatic incident or no
diplomatic incident, provocation or no provocation, ally support or
no ally support, these guys will attack Iran on their way out the
door. They'll mix it in with the scores of pre-emptive pardons
they're going to announce for the torturers and murderers that the
Military Commissions Act didn't manage to immunize. Just watch.
|8.10.07 @ 4:08PM|#
An attack on Iran is not necessary, and I think we'll pretty
much ensure no overthrow of the current regime if we go through
with one. Without us engaging in a needless invasion, a more
liberal Iran arising is probably more likely than not.
Of course, if they do something crazy, then screw 'em. Frankly,
they're lucky they took our embassy during the Cold War and not
afterwards.
jimmydageek|8.10.07 @ 4:20PM|#
How stupid do they think we are?
Quite. Given all of the anecdotal evidence that is provided to me
daily (not just on chat boards and the web, but all around), I
would have to agree with them that many people are uninformed
(read: stupid).
S.A. Miller|8.10.07 @ 4:36PM|#
Was there a point to this post, or was it just an excuse to post that lame YouTube video?
|8.10.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Considering this administration performed one of the greatest "Whoops, my bad" in American history, the "evidence" against Iran is going to have to be way, way, way stronger than, oh, a "slam dunk".
|8.10.07 @ 4:40PM|#
I loved the word Dionne used to describe the Dem vote: they "allowed" the bill to pass. As if the bill was a sentient being walking through a gate! As if a congressman has a third choice when it comes to voting in addition to "Yea" or "No"!
|8.10.07 @ 4:44PM|#
"If there was even the slightest bit of evidence linking a
domestic attack to Iran - or if a tie could be made up - a four- or
five-digit death toll would be more than enough to override common
sense and skepticism against an invasion"
Because the obvious and sensible thing to do would be to ignore
such evidence and let Iran attack and kill US civilians with
impunity. Reason number 99,9999 why Reason is not a serious
publication when it comes to foreign policy.
thoreau|8.10.07 @ 4:50PM|#
John-
Do you think there are any scenarios intermediate between "do
nothing in response to clear evidence of a culprit" and "invade and
occupy in response to a tiny shred of evidence that may or may not
be reliable"?
Because the post you respond to said "even the slightest bit of
evidence" rather than "strong evidence". Keep that in mind.
Oh, and you just invoked the drinking game rules:
Reason number 99,9999 why Reason is not a serious publication
when it comes to foreign policy.
Drink!
Fluffy|8.10.07 @ 5:10PM|#
Johnny Clarke -
Why do you think they will need evidence?
That's the funny thing about Ron Paul's claim that a Gulf of Tonkin
type incident might be set up. I would agree, if I thought that
Bush gave a shit at this point - and I don't think he does. You
only stage an incident to have a pretext for war if you're worried
about having a pretext for war. If you're not going to ask the UN
for a resolution and you're not going to ask the Congress for
authorization, what do you need a pretext for? You don't. You just
act. And that is what this administration will do - just act.
Actually, I'll amend my earlier statement to say that they may not
even do it in response to polls. I wouldn't be surprised if they
waited to see how the election turns out, and then bombed Iranian
facilities in late November if the Democrats win. "Lame duck THIS!"
the T-shirts can say.
|8.10.07 @ 5:14PM|#
Do you think there are any scenarios intermediate between
"do nothing in response to clear evidence of a culprit" and "invade
and occupy in response to a tiny shred of evidence that may or may
not be reliable"?
Well considering Dave Weigel said he opposes even investigating
possible interference by Iran in Iraq ("it's a causus belli!")it's
not unreasonable to think many people here would oppose a serious
investigation into whether a hypothetical future attack was
perpetuated by Iran, for fear that evidence would actually be
found.
Unless the attack was declared, thats how it would go of course.
First there is a little bit of evidence, then an investigation,
then maybe you find more evidence or not.
|8.10.07 @ 5:27PM|#
If Iran actually does attack us or becomes a really awful and
imminent threat--something I'd need some pretty compelling evidence
of--then sure, bomb away. Until then, how about we not do it?
All of this may just be diplomatic saber-rattling, which
can be effective.
Alice Bowie|8.10.07 @ 5:39PM|#
Contrary to US Propaganda...IRAN is NOT suicidal.
The ONLY reason they are developing NUKEs is because they know that
NUKEs is the ONLY thing that will KEEP US and UN OUT.
Syloson of Samos|8.10.07 @ 6:19PM|#
Pro Liberate,
Time to start the weekend and listen to some Def Leppard.
Syloson of Samos|8.10.07 @ 6:26PM|#
Pro Liberate,
Or perhaps The Jesus & the Mary Chain if you perfer? Or Filter?
Or Snow Patrol?
|8.10.07 @ 7:50PM|#
I reveal my musical preferences to no man!
You know, I went to a Def Leppard concert when I was in high
school, in the Before Time. I guess I liked them then, but I don't
like them now. Huh.
My collaborators at Urkobold have much more obvious tastes.
|8.10.07 @ 7:54PM|#
I never paid close attention to popular music, so for years I
had no problem assuming the chorus to Barbara Ann--which I
enjoyed--was "Bah, bah, bah... bah, bah-berraang." (scat
talk?)
Then the radio show I listened to as a kid, Bobby Barbee and the
B-bar-B Riders... well, I was never able to connect the dots/bars
until recently.
What can I say?
So, in closing, may I suggest everyone listen more carefully to
music, and no bombing of anyone by anybody.
Peace.
|8.10.07 @ 7:57PM|#
semm,
If you think really hard, you might be able to come up with another
reason why David Weigel might not think that inviting this
particular administration to put together an investigation into
Iran is the wisest idea.
I know, we can put Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle on it. Then we
can get at the truth and advance our national interest.
|8.10.07 @ 7:59PM|#
I reveal my musical preferences to no man!
I don't know, you took to that Der Commissar reference pretty
quick.
|8.10.07 @ 8:27PM|#
thoreau,
Times fifty? Why, that's...I don't even know what that
is!
Actually, it's zero, not that I think about it.
You look at it, and you think, how much more stupid could it
possibly be? And the answer is, none. None more stupid.
|8.10.07 @ 8:46PM|#
Does John still have faith that this administration could be
honest about the quality of the evidence.
If there is real evidence that Iran was behind something like that
I say it can't go unanswered. I would view it as Iran declaring war
on us. But this administration has proven honesty with the American
people means nothing. There is no reason why anyone should believe
anything they say.
Geoff Nathan|8.10.07 @ 10:29PM|#
I never paid close attention to popular music, so for years
I had no problem assuming the chorus to Barbara Ann--which I
enjoyed--was "Bah, bah, bah... bah, bah-berraang." (scat
talk?)
Then the radio show I listened to as a kid, Bobby Barbee and the
B-bar-B Riders... well, I was never able to connect the dots/bars
until recently.
What can I say?
So, in closing, may I suggest everyone listen more carefully to
music, and no bombing of anyone by anybody.
Clearly you guys don't know the work of Frank De Lima, a stand-up
comedian living and working in Hawaii. He wrote a fantastic
'History of Hawaii' with appropriate words set to late
fifties-early sixties rock songs. The song about Pearl Harbor, was,
of course:
Bah Bah Bah
Bombs from Japan (2)
Way up in the skies was a really big surprise
Bomb Pearl Harbor, Bomb Pearl Harbor...
Albums can be purchased at
http://www.frankdelima.com/store.html
De Lima is brilliant, funny, and a respecter of nobody. The rest of
his canned history of Hawaii is great too. Listen to his story of
Captain Cook, to the tune of Mack the Knife...
|8.10.07 @ 10:29PM|#
In a couple of months, if they start claiming that Iranians
eat puppies, we'll know.
You know, marinaded in Shiraz and cooked with cumin, puppy is
actually quite tasty.
(I keed! I keed!)
Shiraz? HAHAHAHAHA!
Thoreau, everyone knows you marinate red meat in Cabernet.
|8.10.07 @ 11:05PM|#
Was Saddam Arab or Persian?
Iran is Persian if I am not mistaken.
Is Bush the Dumber just a puppet for the house of Saud?
Was Michael Moore right?
(not sarcasm this time)
The Wine Commonsewer-Reg US Pa|8.10.07 @ 11:11PM|#
I'd like to see less stupid YouTube inserts on
H&R
Hey, You Tube is where it's at, man. Except nobody has uploaded
Sawyer Brown doing Six Days On The Road.
Turning Iran into a sea of molten glass would be sound strategy.
Instant gratification. Imagine the power the USA would project with
all those televised images of a smoking black crater of a hole in
the ground. AccuWeather forecasting RealFeel temps of 3000 degrees,
no American troops deployed, no war dead, nothing for Cindy Sheehan
to rally around. For the cost of one transatlantic flight we're
done. In. Out. No more smelly camel jockeys. Come on boys, it's the
right thing to do.
wayaway|8.11.07 @ 2:19AM|#
Shiraz? HAHAHAHAHA!
Thoreau, everyone knows you marinate red meat in
Cabernet.
Syrah (shiraz) is Persian, so they're only being patriotic. Boy,
does it impart a funny taste, though - I laughed and laughed...
TV Shows|8.11.07 @ 6:40AM|#
What everybody neglects to mention is that Iraq is Iran's
next-door neighbor. If some foreign superpower invaded Mexico,
would we really be expected to just sit on our thumbs and whistle
Dixie?
No, we'd be funneling money and arms to the side of the resistance.
What was the Cuban missile crisis supposed to BE about,
anyway?
When we do it, it's Protecting Our Shores. When other nations do
it, it's Supporting Terror.
|8.11.07 @ 9:08AM|#
Uh, which Bomb Iran are you referencing? The studio version or the one from the party when they were all drunk? I suspect the latter.
|8.11.07 @ 11:22AM|#
"If some foreign superpower invaded Mexico, would we really be
expected to just sit on our thumbs and whistle Dixie?"
Why not? Mexico is invading the USA and we aren't doing a damn
thing about it.
But wait, it'd be somebody else's borders we'd be protecting , so
sure, we'd probably go all out.
|8.11.07 @ 11:25AM|#
I just wish that they had included in their flying photos section some shots of the adulterers being stoned and some gays hanging from cranes. To complete the picture.
|8.11.07 @ 7:23PM|#
"Turning Iran into a sea of molten glass would be sound
strategy. Instant gratification. Imagine the power the USA would
project with all those televised images of a smoking black crater
of a hole in the ground. AccuWeather forecasting RealFeel temps of
3000 degrees, no American troops deployed, no war dead, nothing for
Cindy Sheehan to rally around. For the cost of one transatlantic
flight we're done. In. Out. No more smelly camel jockeys. Come on
boys, it's the right thing to do."
Mr. Sewer,
First we get this Frank DeLima guy out in Hawaii to set your above
to music. Then we see how it plays.
You'd be willing to wait that long wouldn't you?
|8.11.07 @ 8:40PM|#
"Remember, one of the things that 'united us' in the days
following 9/11 was bloodlust. Vengeance went hand-in-hand with the
fervent patriotism in the bars and at the water coolers across the
nation."
I don't remember that at all, actually. I remember people wanting
to kill bin Laden and his terrorist buddies, but not any sort of
indiscriminate desire to kill civilians by Americans. Given your
haziness about the recent past, I'm skeptical about your authority
on future events.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245