Atrios - So What if Iran Blows the Hell Out of a City or Two
Look, I just don't get this stuff. I don't want Iran to have nukes. I don't think that's a good thing for the world. I certainly didn't want Pakistan or India to have nukes. But is a nuclear Iran really a threat to us? Certainly an Iran-with-nukes could blow the hell out of a city or two, but an Iran that did such a thing would pretty much cease to exist. It isn't mutually assured destruction, it's you f*ck with us a little bit and YOU NO LONGER LIVE BITCHES!
York correctly points out the insanity of such a view:
Yes, Atrios suggests that if Iran becomes a nuclear power, and if they "blow the hell out of a city or two," then the United States would retaliate. But isn't that what the entire world is hoping to avoid? If a nuclear Iran took out Jerusalem and London, to name a city or two, wouldn't that be really bad -- even if the U.S. was capable of devastating retaliation? Wouldn't it be better to prevent such an outcome, even if it involved a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?
Preventing Iran from "blowing the hell out of a city or two" is exactly what we are attempting to do. The strategy that Atrios appears to be promoting is one where we let Iran blow the hell out of our allies then we blow the hell out of Iran. And what about our troops in Iraq and other locations in the Middle East? Don't you think they would be an appealing target for the mad mullahs?
It's hard to grasp a thread of logic in such a strategy. It would in fact be an easier and safer strategy for America to sit back and after it happened then say we have the rational to wipe Iran off the map (unless our troops were the target of one of the bombs of course). I doubt if such an American strategy would provide much comfort or confidence for our allies. No one would win using the Atrios Iranian Strategy including the Iranian people.....................
York points out that Atrios is a mainstream member of the new ultra left that seems to be gaining control of the democratic party that they "bought & own":
His website is quite popular on the left, he is a key figure in the watchdog organization Media Matters for America, and he is an increasingly influential voice among "netroots" activists. On the night of the State of the Union address, for example, he took part in a discussion in Washington sponsored by the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank founded by former White House chief of staff John Podesta, which was broadcast on the Air America radio network. That is not to suggest that all the Center's supporters, or all the network's listeners, agree with him, but it does suggest that they view him as an important voice in their constituency.
The lack of seriousness and understanding over the Iranian nuclear threat by the hard left is scary and very worthy of being exposed and discussed. Can you imagine these minds in charge of and dictating foreign policy and military strategy?????????
Atrios is none to happy about the focus on his Iran Strategy and responded with Fear is the Mind Killer:
He of the best hair in punditry gives us a preview of the coming political campaign. Anyone who suggests that Iran is not the biggest scariest monster in the world is going to have their comments misrepresented....................I'm quite against nuclear proliferation in all of its forms and it would've been nice if we had been taking it more seriously. But thinking that Iran shouldn't have nukes is not the same as imagining that Iran with nukes is the "greatest threat to the Republic" that we face. I just have no idea how that computes.
Atrios even attacks a blogger Scrutator who posted on the matter and linked to the Atrios post:
But then we have this idiot trolling for hits by posting a trackback. He falls on the "stupid" side, unable to comprehend that York relies on idiots like him to help spread his gospel of nonsense...............
I'm guessing by the moonbat comments following the post that Scrutator did in fact get a few hits........................................