No Options Are Off the Table

By -
Daniel Kuehn claims (in the comments) that I am being "deceptive" in saying that, when Obama says "no options are off the table" regarding Iran, he is threatening that country with war:

'Are you referring to "no options are off the table"? If that's what you're referring to, that seems extremely deceptive on your part. If there's something I'm missing, I'd be interested in hearing about it. We should keep everything on the table with Iran.'

If the point of this is not to threaten Iran with war if they don't behave, then what is the point? Does Daniel think that Obama talks this way to David Cameron? If we are having a trade dispute with Canada over lumber, does Obama say to... who the heck is in charge up there now, anyway? Is it still Garry Trudeau?... in any case, does he tell the Prime Minister "no options are off the table"? Does he say to Angela Merckle, "You'd better get the Euro thing straightened out pronto, because no options are off the table"?

Of course not. Because these leaders would go ballistic. Because they recognize it as a threat of war. Which it is.

Comments

  1. Anonymous2:06 PM

    "no options are off the table" is pol-speak for "if you don't do what we want, then maybe our military will help to change your mind."

    Anybody that doesn't understand this is either dense or being entirely disingenuous. Now, I happen to know that DK is not dense, but I often feel that he likes to nitpick the details on things like this when the intent is pretty clear. Why he does that I do not know, but I am fairly certain that he knows exactly what that phrase means.

    ReplyDelete
  2. skylien3:32 AM

    There is a 3rd one Joseph:

    Daniel might just genuinely believe in the good character of Obama.

    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