Palin's uninvitation

[cema]

Everybody has mentioned it, I am not sure many have internalized it though.

Another article (among many): Caroline Glick, the Jerusalem Post.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017359617&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer

Update. You did not like the tone? Did you like the contents? OK, here is an older link for you: http://blogs.jta.org/politics/2008/09/18/1765/palin-disinvited-from-iran-rally/

It's not about elections. It's about the Jewish organizations. Frankly, I feel a bit of shame, even though I am not a member of any.

Update. More reading for you from Jerusalem Post, this time from a Republicans-related organization. I am not a Republican overall, but in this respect I feel a lot of affinity.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017379006&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

Comments

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

The organization acted correctly. One of the reasons I hope republicans loose is that we don't really need a war with Iran right now. And we don't need cheap talk either.

The just-in-time war

[trurle.livejournal.com]

Generally speaking, we don't really need a war at all, right? But in case the war appears to be inevitable, it should take place according to the wishes of American electorate, in particular, when mme_n_b is in the fighting mood.

:)

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

Precisely. As opposed to, say, the wishes of the Israeli electorate.

Re: :)

[trurle.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, there peoples out there that don't give a shit about the appropriate war schedule and operate according to their own one. While the proper way of dealing with the present Iranian regime is debatable, the insistence that the conflict timing depends on the American policy is amusing.

Re: :)

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

Well, you don't really imagine that any conflict will start with Iran attacking America, do you?

Re: :)

[trurle.livejournal.com]

That depends on a lot of considerations, mostly on the Iranian part. At least, I don't see why you consider yourself safe from the nuclear-armed madmen any more then anybody else.
If you think that MAD would work with Iran, then Israel and US are equally safe; if MAD would not work, then God help us all.

Re: :)

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

Frankly, if it's "mostly on the Iranian part" than I don't see what difference any speaches by Palin might make. Except, perhaps, to goad those horrifying Iranians into action even sooner.

Re: :)

[trurle.livejournal.com]

MAD regime presume certain way of building the interstate relationship. The accommodating policy, dor instance, is hardly compatible with the MAD.

Re: :)

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

Which is connected to Palin's speech how?

Re: :)

[trurle.livejournal.com]

How MAD is related to the rhetoric?
In several, non-trivial ways. For instance, MAD assumes credible retaliation threat.

Re: :)

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

Not to rhetoric in general, please stick with the question. How is it related to the non-given speech by a non-vice-president?

Re: :)

[trurle.livejournal.com]

Non-speech! Sounds Orwellian, doesn't it?

We are not talking about non-speech by the non-vice-president or non-speech by the non-would-be-presidential-candidate, but about your rather amusing assumption that US may decide on the confrontation schedule.

Indeed, there is a certain dilemma: whether to attempt preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities by force, or to pray that MAD would work. Both options are military by their nature, and it is not US nor Israel who opted for the military confrontation.

Re: :)

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

I don't know about you, but I was talking about the specific theme of this post.

Re: :)

[trurle.livejournal.com]

link

Re: :)

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

Right. I'm discussing the speech. You're trying to go off on a tangent.

Re: :)

[trurle.livejournal.com]

Speech is not interesting, policy is.
The brawl, in particular, is stupid, as Clinton is even more belligerent on Iran than Palin.

Re: :)

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I don't feel like discussing policy in any connection with Palin. The thought is too dismal. Personally, I think this whole election is a Russian plot. They are controlling McKaine through drugs, which is why his character changed so much, and also why he picked Palin. The idea is to get him elected and then assassinate him thus putting Palin in charge for four years during which Russia will be able to make immense strides towards winning the Second Cold War.

Re: :)

[trurle.livejournal.com]

You've opened my eyes!
But I have even better idea: the Russians control significant part of US electorate via the top-secret electro-magnetic mental control fields. Only the tinfoil hats can save you mind!

Re: :)

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

Nonsense - they know about the hats. The control is done by the hypnotic blinking of the voting-machine screens.

Re: :)

[trurle.livejournal.com]

Even if the tinfoil doesn't help, it certainly doesn't harm.
As for the voting: winning strategy would be voting with closed eyes. The result would be different from the Kremlin-induced.

Re: :)

[trurle.livejournal.com]

Well, if you consider the Russian threat to be paramount, you should definitely vote Obama.