No. . but I don't think his theory that a conventional strike against Iran's nuclear facility, being successful, will all end in hugs and roses. For ANY strike by Israel I think is going to result in Iran wiping them off the map.
He may not be wrong. It's scale I'm having a problem with. Ask yourself how many nuclear tests were conducted in the western US and the resulting fallout vs. the possible number of strikes in an Israeli/Iranian exchange. What size of yield are we talking about here. If it's one 50 megaton warhead, we can pretty much write off the entire middle east. If it's two three or four 10 kiloton or less then we may only be looking at localized no-man zones. As for destabilizing effects. I'd have to say that Iran is already a major destabilizing influence as it is. If it's removed, what affect will that have?
"It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
"Sounds pretty great. But you know something? Sooner or later I rub everybody the wrong way."
"Love is the expression of one's values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another."
As for me.... what love I have left will stay in it's cage, not to be released again. There is only pain on that path.
'Atlas Shrugged', 1957
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
Robert Heinlein
"Do not confuse "duty" with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe to yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anything from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect. But there is no reward at all for doing what other people expect of you, and to do so is not merely difficult, but impossible. It is easier to deal with a footpad than it is with the leech who wants "just a few minutes of your time, please — this won't take long." Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. If you allow yourself to fall into the vice of agreeing to such requests, they quickly snowball to the point where these parasites will use up 100 percent of your time — and squawk for more! So learn to say No — and to be rude about it when necessary. Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble away your life and leave none of it for you. (This rule does not mean that you must not do a favor for a friend, or even a stranger. But let the choice be yours. Don't do it because it is "expected" of you.)"
Zoe:Sir, is there some information we might maybe be lacking as to why there's an entire Fed squad sitting on this train?
Mal: Doesn't concern us.
Zoe: It kinda concerns me
Zoe: You don't think that changes the situation a bit?
Mal: I surely do. Makes it more fun!
Zoe: Sir? I think you have a problem with your brain being missing.
Ronald Reagan said:
'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'
3 comments:
No. . but I don't think his theory that a conventional strike against Iran's nuclear facility, being successful, will all end in hugs and roses. For ANY strike by Israel I think is going to result in Iran wiping them off the map.
Iran is just itchng to pull that trigger.
He may not be wrong. It's scale I'm having a problem with. Ask yourself how many nuclear tests were conducted in the western US and the resulting fallout vs. the possible number of strikes in an Israeli/Iranian exchange. What size of yield are we talking about here. If it's one 50 megaton warhead, we can pretty much write off the entire middle east. If it's two three or four 10 kiloton or less then we may only be looking at localized no-man zones. As for destabilizing effects. I'd have to say that Iran is already a major destabilizing influence as it is. If it's removed, what affect will that have?
Also note reports of IAF planes seen landing and refueling at Iraqi airbases this last week.
Wish I could find that cite again.
Post a Comment