War with Iran, Anyone?

By Rachael Anne -
Dick Cheney puts the option on the table.

Comments

  1. Anonymous2:09 PM

    I think that Iran having nukes would be more of a countervailing force to the US. I see it as a good thing, personally.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5:54 PM

    Good point! I think the US will use Israel to countervail Iran's nuclear ambitions. It's the perfect plan! Israel has experience disrupting these programs, and there would be no love lost in the region.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous1:12 AM

    Great article! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7:13 AM

    Nice Blog!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous7:13 AM

    Thanks for interesting article.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous8:16 AM

    Thank You! Very interesting article. Do you can write anything else about it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous6:25 AM

    Very interesting site. Blog is very good. I am happy that I think the same!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous8:49 PM

    Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous8:57 PM

    i think it is good Tales Of Pirates gold

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more