There are still a few good guys in Hollywood -- not many, but a few. Gary Sinise is one of them; along with Chuck Heston, Cheryl Ladd, James Woods, Tom Selleck and others. While some simply give a check or a few minutes of their time at a mindless award show, Mr. Sinise has traveled to Iraq not once, not twice but three times in support of USO efforts.
#1
I refuse to see movies with the others in them. I know it does not have much monitary effect, but I sure feel better, and is that not what movies are for?
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/23/2006 7:59 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Duvall makes it and I don't? Whothehell made/directed Open Range?
Posted by: Kevin Costner ||
01/23/2006 20:02 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Ann Margret -- Not surprised at all. Met her in 1979. Dove into her eyes and happily drowned. Perfect situation, good wine, perfect weather, a quiet evening on the veranda, no interruptions - and we talked for over an hour. Very Classy Human. My funeral is still on hold, but I shuffled off to heaven more than 26 yrs ago.
Don't feel bad, Kevin! "The Postman" was overly long, but basically, it was a story about standing up to tyranny and bringing hope to oppressed people. Yeah!
#10
Saw a couple of articles on Lucianne.com the other day, but I kept timing out here, so didn't post them. Anyway, ticket sales are down, which means the studios aren't earning as much. Two consequences: 1) Even the big name actors are taking significant up-front pay cuts, and 2) the studios plan to make significantly fewer films over the next few years. Apparently there is a real cost to being totally out of touch with the American zeitgeist. Heh.
When you read what our nation's leaders have been saying about Iran's continuing effort to develop nuclear weapons, you have to think there is a pretty good chance that our war in Iraq could soon shift east to Tehran.
Here is a sampling:
-"Launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in. On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse."
-"A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies."
-"We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons,"
-"The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike."
No one likes the prospect of another front in the war on terror, but Iran has thumbed its nose at the international community and insisted on the right to carry out its nuclear program without oversight, which means ensuring the opportunity to create enriched uranium for use in nuclear bombs.
And an Iran with the capacity to deliver nuclear bombs through either its missiles or its terrorist friends is enough to make even the most devout atheist wake up with visions of Armageddon dancing through his head.
So it's easy to see why President Bush might be considering a military option against Iran.
Nonetheless, in order to expand the war on terror to yet another country, the president would need a national consensus, wouldn't he? And getting the Democratic Party to support military action against Iran would be impossible, wouldn't it?
Maybe not.
You see, all those quotes at the beginning of this column are not from members of the Bush administration as you might have suspected, but from Democratic sources.
The attribution for the four quotes is as follows: Sen. Barack Obama, D.-Ill.; the national platform of the Democratic Party in 2004; Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.; and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the party's presidential candidate in 2004.
So it's obvious that there already is an emerging consensus about the necessity for action if Iran turns belligerent.
The problem, of course, will be maintaining national unity if such a war goes from theoretical to actual. We all saw what happened when President Bush took our country to war against Iraq. Almost everyone, including most Democratic leaders, was on the record supporting the invasion as an appropriate response to Saddam Hussein's stonewalling tactics as the world tried to find out about his weaponry programs.
But then a few days after we were in Baghdad, the united front collapsed and Democrats started looking for political opportunities in the chaos of battle. They even had the audacity to claim they were misled into war, even though Democrats like Kerry, Clinton (senator and ex-president both) and Sen. Joe Biden were among the biggest supporters of taking out Saddam.
Could that happen again?
Probably not, and here's why.
You probably recall many of President Bush's critics complaining that the war in Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." A lot of them went so far as to say that the war was just about oil, not about terrorism or security. Why, they asked, didn't we fight even more dangerous countries such as Iran and North Korea -- countries that already had or were developing nuclear technology?
The implication was that as long as there was a real threat to world peace and national security, such as a nuclear Iran, then Democrats would be happy to join the fight.
Well, Kerry, Clinton and the gang may just get their wish for a "just" war.
Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has taken the gloves off. No more Mr. Nice Iran! This guy went to the Osama bin Laden School of Charm and Bombmaking, and he is clearly looking for an invitation to be Saddam's dance partner the next time the band strikes up the "Paranoia Polka."
For instance, in October, Ahmadinejad declared that the state of Israel should be "wiped off the map." He later revised that statement somewhat to allow that he could support relocation of Israel to somewhere in Eastern Europe, where (by the way) he also doesn't think a Holocaust ever took place.
In addition, he has announced that, "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny ... a historic war between the oppressor [Christians] and the world of Islam" and he has said that he is awaiting the return of the messianic Shiite "Twelfth Imam" to rescue the world from "terrible and unprecedented calamities and misfortunes" (remember Armageddon?) and to establish Islam throughout the world.
The fact that this man rules a large and powerful country is worrisome in itself, but not unique. We certainly can't fight wars with all the irrational loudmouths who run countries. But what makes the chance of war with Iran more likely is the combination of Ahmadinejad's inflammatory rhetoric with a nascent nuclear weapons program (remember the bombmaking school?) that has the capacity to not just inflame but to incinerate.
So as the war in Iraq winds down and the Iraqis go about their business of setting up a constitutional democracy, the war on terror may very well have to turn its sights to Iran. After all, a world where rogue nations possess atomic weapons is a world with no security at all.
Who knows? If such a "just" war becomes necessary, perhaps the United States could even count on support from its allies.
Surely, with Iran arming missiles to destroy Israel and concealing nuclear reactors in hardened bunkers, the civilized world would have to come together in one united front to demand that Ahmadinejad and his cleric cronies give up their bombs or become the victims of ours.
Don't believe it?
Well, we started with quotes from Democrats, so let's end with a quote from a Frenchman:
"Everyone recognizes that Iran ... [has] a right to peacefully use nuclear energy. But it is imperative for the international community to ensure that the commitments reached for everyone's security are respected. [The Iranians] would be committing a grave error if they do not grasp the hand that we are extending to them." --Jacques Chirac, president of France.
Considering the stakes, Germany, France, the Soviet Union and other countries may very well join with us and Great Britain to build an international coalition to prevent Iran from following through on its nuclear threats.
Heck, if the Democrats and Republicans can come together to agree to use America's military might in defense of our national security, then anything is possible, right?
#1
Don't count on REALISTIC foreign support: Chriac et. al. want a veto power over US military action, and thus have no incentive to act at the moment when the situation tilts in favor of a military victory: 5,000 american soldiers unnecessarily put into body bags doesn't mean a shit to them, while they mean a lot to Bush. A gambler will be content to making bad bets and losing time and again IF SOMEONE ELSE IS PROVIDING THE CASH AND PAYING THE DEBTS.
Why did French President Jacques Chirac last week threaten to use non-conventional - that is, nuclear - weapons against terrorist states? And why did Iran announce that it would shift foreign-exchange reserves out of European banks (although it has since retracted this warning)? The answer lies in the nature of Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Iran needs nuclear weapons, I believe, not to attack Israel, but to support imperial expansion by conventional military means.
Iran's oil exports will shrink to zero in 20 years, just at the demographic inflection point when the costs of maintaining an aged population will crush its state finances, as I reported in Demographics and Iran's imperial design (September 13, 2005). Just outside Iran's present frontiers lie the oil resources of Iraq, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, and not far away are the oil concentrations of eastern Saudi Arabia. Its neighbors are quite as alarmed as Washington about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and privately quite happy for Washington to wipe out this capability.
It is remarkable how quickly an international consensus has emerged for the eventual use of force against Iran. Chirac's indirect reference to the French nuclear capability was a warning to Tehran. Mohamed ElBaradei, whose Nobel Peace Prize last year was awarded to rap the knuckles of the United States, told Newsweek that in the extreme case, force might be required to stop Iran's acquiring a nuclear capability. German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag that the military option could not be abandoned, although diplomatic efforts should be tried first. Bild, Germany's largest-circulation daily, ran Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad's picture next to Adolf Hitler's, with the headline, "Will Iran plunge the world into the abyss?"
The same Europeans who excoriated the United States for invading Iraq with insufficient proof of the presence of weapons of mass destruction already have signed on to a military campaign against Iran, in advance of Iran's gaining WMD. There are a number of reasons for this sudden lack of squeamishness, and all of them lead back to oil.
First, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have the most to lose from a nuclear-equipped Iran. No one can predict when the Saudi kingdom might become unstable, but whenever it does, Iran will stand ready to support its Shi'ite co-religionists, who make up a majority in the kingdom's oil-producing east.
At some point the United States will reduce or eliminate its presence in Iraq, and the result, I believe, will be civil war. Under conditions of chaos Iran will have a pretext to expand its already substantial presence on the ground in Iraq, perhaps even to intervene militarily on behalf of its Shi'ite co-religionists.
What now is Azerbaijan had been for centuries the northern provinces of the Persian Empire, and a nuclear-armed Iran could revive Persian claims on southern Azerbaijan. Iran continues to lay claim to a share of Caspian Sea energy resources under the Iranian-Soviet treaties of 1921 and 1940. [1] For the time being, Azerbaijani-Iranian relations are the most cordial in years, with Iran providing natural gas to pockets of Azerbaijani territory blockaded by Armenia, and Baku defending Iran's nuclear program. As Iran's oil production dwindles over the next two decades, though, its historic claims on the Caspian are likely to re-emerge.
Ahmedinejad's apocalyptic inclinations have inspired considerable comment from Western analysts, who note that he appears to believe in the early return of the Mahdi, the 12th Imam. I do not know whether Ahmedinejad is mad or sane, but even mad people may be sly and calculating. Iran's prospects are grim. Over a generation it faces demographic decay, economic collapse and cultural deracination. When reason fails to provide a solution to an inherently insoluble problem, irrationality well may take hold. Like Hitler, who also was mad but out-bluffed the West for years before overreaching, Ahmedinejad is pursuing a rational if loathsome imperial policy.
Given Israel's possession of a large arsenal of fission weapons as well as thermonuclear capability, it is extremely unlikely that Iran would attack the Jewish state unless pressed to the wall. Faced with encirclement and ruin, the Islamic Republic is fully capable of lashing out in a destructive and suicidal fashion, not only against Israel but against other antagonists. Whatever one may say about Chirac, he is not remotely stupid, and feels it prudent to warn Iran that pursuit of its imperial ambitions may lead to a French nuclear response. French intelligence evidently believes that Iran may express its frustrations through terrorist actions in the West.
By far the biggest loser in an Iranian confrontation with the West will be China, the fastest-growing among the world's large economies, but also the least efficient in energy use. Higher oil prices will harm China's economy more than any other, and Beijing's reluctance to back Western efforts to encircle Iran are understandable in this context. It is unclear how China will proceed if the rest of the international community confronts Iran; in the great scheme of things it really does not matter.
Washington will initiate military action against Iran only with extreme reluctance, but it will do so nonetheless, except in the extremely unlikely event that Ahmedinejad were to stand down. Rather than a legacy of prosperity and democracy in the Middle East, the administration of US President George W Bush will exit with an economy weakened by higher oil prices and chaos on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere. But it really has no other options, except to let a nuclear-armed spoiler loose in the oil corridor. We have begun the third act of the tragedy that started on September 11, 2001, and I see no way to prevent it from proceeding.
I am with you until your last paragraph. It is not a given that America will lead the third act-I don't think that strategy has been thoroughly thought through.
#3
That's Spengler-the-pseudonymous-columnist-for
-the-Asian-Times, and not the historian of the
same name.
Posted by: Phil ||
01/23/2006 15:50 Comments ||
Top||
#4
OK, lets' say there is a strike against Iran's nuclear capability; US, and/or Israel, and/or France (yeah, right). What happens next?
Facts:
(1) Iran wants the Basra/Shi'ite part of Iraq (at a minimum).
(2) Before this latest media tempest, they were snarling at Britain.... which, by the way, is the country that has troops in Basra.
(?generating a little propaganda against the folks they think they'll be fighting next?)
(3) Mucky (Tater, not our dyslexic Mucky) has pledged his "legions" (AKA the "72 Virgins Dating Service") to support Iran in the event of an attack on that peace-loving Islamic country.
Hypothesis:
1) Mullahs assume:
(a) that a strike against Iran will isolate the US much as the Iraq war did, if not more. If Israel joins in, then that's just so much gravy as far as Muslim Street opinion goes.
(b) Britain is weak in terms of willingness to fight a major war; the fact that they are against taking military action against Iran means they won't be willing to fight a costly war whose causus belli is an attack on Iran by the US.
c) If they've been reading MSM and actually believe it, they would come to the conclusion that the US military is stressed and streched to the max.
2) It's possible they may actually want to be attacked to given them an excuse to send their army into the Southern Iraq oil fields, betting on:
a) UN/world opinion isolating the US with China and Russia doing all they can to twist the knife
b) A weak response or outright retreat by Britain caused by lack of support for the US actions, massive incursion by Iran and a major uprising by Tater's Tots.
(this would be # 4, wouldn't it, or #5, it's so hard to keep track of).... and
c) the US tied down in Afghanistan and the rest of Iraq by the dozens of terrorist groups the Mullahs are currently supporting.
d) the US will back off after it becomes evident that the Iraq war isn't ending, WWIV is just starting...
Who knows, if you actually believe Mo got the straight scoop from Allah, you might believe this crap, too
#5
The Left wants their MSM-verified, alleged world-safet, fail-safe "multipolar centres of power" but built or modernized at mostly American or Western or Capitalist expense. The Russian say war wid the USA and only the USA is likely and realistic circa 2018 or shortly after; ditto for the Chicoms 2014-2017 - for now, IRAN = NORTH KOREA, ETAL. utility is getting Amer to overstretch its volunteer armed forces ags an still over-centralized, matialized and militarized Russia-China and their conventional armies; and doing so whilst the US DemoLeft and MSM induce Amer's domestic anti-Unitarian Unitarian. Clintonian Fascist = Communist or Fascist = De-Regulated/Limited Communist NPE to take over and Socialize everything and anything, everyone and anyone, in the name of private, societal, and national-geopol Safety, Security and Protection. God and Religion are "fakes", Reality Shows > People can't be trusted for anything,and ..............................................., when o'when is the Fed going to review and improve Mine safety rules for the mining industry in West Virginia, and those unknown events still to occur. America must Must M-U-S-T-T-T PC wage war for global empire vv 9-11 while NOT being allowed to govern either itself nor its newly won Empire. Amers and only Amers must Must M-U-S-T-T-T pay the bulk iff not all of future Global Taxation in the name of a America = Amerika or Global Empire Amers are not allowed to govern or control in their own interest nor for their own benefit. Meanwhile, Failed and Failing anti-democratic Socialism in the rest of the world goes on in perpetuity wid out need for reform nor powersharing. AMERICAN AND GLOBAL HOLOCAUST IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE AND GLOBAL UTOPIA -SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL DEATH CAMP/SUICIDE STATION, D*** YOU, SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL GARRISON BROTHEL. GOOD CLINTONIANS DEMAND THEIR WOMEN SEXUALLY SERVE 100-1000 GLOBAL WAFFEN SOVIET PEOPLE'S ARMY = UNO PEACEKEEPERS EVERY DAY, YOU LUCKY OWG UTOPIAN, USSA = Amerikan USR YOU!?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
