Comments: Entire World Menaced By Better Iranian Cell Phone Reception

AGAIN, the only answer is to bomb Iran into the stoneage. AMERICANS and only OUR most trustworthy allies should be allowed any techonology other than bows and arrows or spears.

Posted by Mike Meyer at February 5, 2009 12:27 PM

In a masterpiece of understatement, the UK Guardian helpfully points out that the Iranian satellite launch "does not imply Iran is on the brink of targeting Washington with a nuclear
warhead." While I appreciate this distressingly rare bow to sanity, I feel compelled to point out a few more things that would not imply Iran is on the brink of targeting Washington with a nuclear warhead...

Strikingly Schwarzian style! Nice post, John.

Posted by Nell at February 5, 2009 12:36 PM

Well, "targeting" perhaps in the sense of "aiming at". What they actually mean is this: "does not imply Iran is on the brink of deterring Washington with a nuclear warhead."

Posted by abb1 at February 5, 2009 01:47 PM

I do think the unstated assumption of many of these articles is, "The Iranians will use the bomb as soon as they get it, regardless of the fact that we would subsequently nuke Iran until it was the temperature of the Sun. Those Iranians are all rabid, suicidal Islamists who want nothing more than to destroy our society, after all!" Which is absurd in the extreme, but that's what racism is good for.

Posted by saurabh at February 5, 2009 01:51 PM

yes abb1, I've also noticed no one talks about bombing North Korea, now that they actually have nukes.

Posted by Jonathan Versen at February 5, 2009 01:54 PM

Of course, when the major news outlets say: "Iran is not on the brink of targeting Washington with a nuclear warhead." - what they really mean is "What kind of warhead is it?" and "How many does Iran have?"

Posted by AlanSmithee at February 5, 2009 02:07 PM

Personally, I feel extremely uncomfortable just knowing that the Iranians have knives. Something should've been done about it long time ago.

Posted by abb1 at February 5, 2009 02:27 PM

Yeah, but John you're so picky. For example, Ahminedejad wouldn't have to go on TV and scream that he's targeting Washington. He could issue a press release in the paper saying in a normal voice that he's targeting Washington with a nuclear warhead. You have to be aware of the subtleties of our enemies.

I'm digging into my scorn supply, which I have to keep replenishing constantly, as I use it so much.

Posted by catherine at February 5, 2009 03:36 PM

I agree with Alexander Cockburn that every nation should have at least one nuclear weapon.

On another note I like the idea of Iran launching all its conventional missiles at Israel. Half of them would fall short and destroy Damascus and Amman. The other half would destroy Cairo.

Posted by Seth at February 5, 2009 05:27 PM

You really do despise the Semites, don't you, Seth? Or a vast majority of them anyway.

Posted by abb1 at February 5, 2009 05:36 PM

abb1: On the contrary. I think the ideal situation, as Chomsky has suggested, would be for the Turks to resume control over the whole area. The Ottoman period offered the most stability, openness and mutual respect between competing groups in the history of the region.

You know what, it wouldn't surprise me if the Iranians secretly targeted Cairo, Damascus and Amman anyway. If you want to see anti-Semitism try calling a Persian an Arab. Shiite control of Mecca is an old aspiration anyway.

Posted by Seth at February 5, 2009 05:44 PM

I'm sure those who suffered under the Ottoman empire would disagree.

Posted by dapajoe at February 5, 2009 06:08 PM

dapajoe: You're apparently under some sort of misapprehension. There was no Armenian genocide, remember?

Posted by saurabh at February 5, 2009 07:28 PM

I'm going to choose to look on the bright side. Maybe it means lots more money for math and science teachers.

Posted by SteveB at February 5, 2009 07:46 PM

Those Persians have been too chicken to invade anybody for a coupla thousand years. Once they get one A bomb, NATURALLY, their courage will 'dutch up' and they'll want to conquer the world, starting in downtown Des Moines. (Where is Raza Shah when WE need him most?)

Posted by Mike Meyer at February 5, 2009 07:59 PM

On the contrary. I think the ideal situation, as Chomsky has suggested, would be for the Turks to resume control over the whole area.

Head*desk ... head*desk ... head*desk ... head*desk ...

Posted by NonyNony at February 5, 2009 09:17 PM

Yeah, but Rob, Seth didn't even mention Chomsky, or Iran, or the Ottoman empire.

Posted by Duncan at February 5, 2009 09:45 PM

:D

Posted by RobWeaver at February 5, 2009 09:53 PM

Head*desk ... head*desk ... head*desk ... head*desk ...

Now look at that, you've injured a good man!

Posted by Save the Oocytes at February 5, 2009 10:22 PM

WhatEVS! You see the point...it wasn't so bad under Ottoman control from a relative perspective.

You guys love to play this holier than thou game...Oh Seth wants Pamuk jailed, Oh Seth favors Armenian genocide, Seth misrepresents Chomsky...

Would you have liked it better if I was like, "Gee Nasserite panArabism is such a wonderful and pure idea, why can't it be allowed to flourish?"

Posted by Seth at February 5, 2009 10:52 PM

Everyone be kind.

As someone who only reads this bleg on and off, I feel like there's been a trend toward bickering. Cut it out. It's not fun, funny, informative nor really does it smell very nice.

If everyone who frequents this blog remembers that there are many others reading silently--you are on public display--it may help you to be less crass in expressing your annoyances with one another.

Thanks.

Posted by Joel at February 6, 2009 02:18 AM

I think my favourite comment on this was the BBC news solemnly stating that the satellite was launched using "missile technology" -- as opposed to what, exactly? A giant catapult?

And if it were a giant catapult, I can imagine that they would have reported that Iran had developed the biggest catapult in the world and, as a result, was a threat to world peaceā€¦

Insane, really, given that there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme at all... And all a few years after the whole Iraq WMD nonsense... I guess that the media is busy trying to prove Chomsky right...

Posted by Anarcho at February 6, 2009 03:55 AM

Or if the comments suck, you could just not read them. It's worked for me in the past.

Posted by Save the Oocytes at February 6, 2009 04:15 AM

Perhaps Hillary was referring to her own clenched fist. In which case, she is expecting Iran to carefully peel back her fingers one by one, presumably through diplomacy. They get 5 chances, in other words.

In this extended metaphor, Iran's refusal of visas to the badminton team uses up one of those chances and is practically an act of war. Why do they want to be obliterated so badly?

Posted by Baldie McEagle at February 6, 2009 08:22 AM

i was gonna say what baldie mceagle was going to say - it looks like hillary is the one with the clenched fist, just waiting to sucker punch the other guy

Posted by almostinfamous at February 7, 2009 09:52 PM