I'm sure that all the people (many of whom were no doubt self-styled feminists) who were wailing and keening about Tookie Williams will be protesting this any minute now:

An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.

[crickets chirping]

Well, maybe tomorrow.

But it's probably not the Iranian government's fault. I'm sure they just do things like this out of an inferiority complex, and in response to the evil Western influences, and McDonalds, and Britney.

I'm sure they'll behave better when they get nukes.

[Sunday evening update]

Just for the record, I don't agree in any way with the commenter who is pining for a "Curtis LeMay type, who won't care who's in office."

They put teenage rape victims to death. They cannot be trusted with nukes, having proved themselves to be barbaric.

The joke goes, "We were cleaning our Israelis, and they just went off." It would, however, be disastrous if we wait for Israel to take action. We are going to have to reduce the Iranians' nuclear capabilities--Israeli action to do so would result in a massive worsening of our situation.

What this demonstrates to me is that the object of the conflict in which we are currently engaged is an historic slapdown of Islamic "civilisation". My apologies to any reasonable Muslims reading this, the stakes are higher now, than in the days of horse cavalry and fighting sail. There must never again be a Caliphate.

Better the Israelis do it lest the Shites in southern Iran get mad at us.

The thing that hasn't been addressed, is our (or anyone's) ability to take out the Iranian nuclear establishment. Unless they have been very stupid, I would guess that they are much further along than they have let on, and that the critical facilities are all deep underground and they are running information jamming ops with double agents, fake targets and lots of disinformation.

In the early 60s, the US nixed a Russian bid to take out the Chinese nuke program. This was when China was under Mao and undergoing enormous political upheaval. I think the same logic applies now, attempting to take out Iranian nukes is going to result in some very non-equilibrium/chaos driven politics, the final results of which are going to be difficult to predict.

Of course, the actual intel situation may allow such action, and I hope that's the case. Given the record of the CIA to date, however, I am not optomistic.

Bush had the opportunity to do what had to be done on September 12th, but he did not take it. The next opportunity will be on the day after a nuke explodes in an American city. I hope that there is some Curtis LeMay type in our armed forces who will act, regardless of who is in office.

hope that there is some Curtis LeMay type in our armed forces who will act, regardless of who is in office.

We should pray there is not.

Correct me if I'm wrong but slaughtering millions of women and children in response to a terror attack is ... justified in some fashion? Okay with you because they are non-believers? Jesus wept, anonymous, the best response you can make to a hypothetical attack is "kill 'em all"?

Putting millions to death as a result of the action of a tyrant was last centuries default response.

It might come to that in the end but I think we can be smarter about it than that. We must - the butcher's bill for such a conflict would make WW I seem a Sunday picnic.

I am not anxious to feed my kinds - or myself - into something like that when there are better ways to win this conflict.

Lots of feminists (most?) are angry about how women are treated in many muslim countries. One of the classic feminist novels, Nawal El Saadawi's "Woman at Zero Point" tells the cruel story of an egyptian woman.

Lots of feminists (most?) are angry about how women are treated in many muslim countries.

They are, until they have to make a choice between the Muslim countries and the evil west, in which case many find the latter the greater evil. See, for example, Sunera Thobani's idiotic comments before we went into Afghanistan in the fall '01.

Ask me to support invading Islamic countries to spread equal rights for women and I will agree. Spreading human rights as a legitimate use of the US military and taxpayer treasure? I'm okay with that, both for President Bush and future Democratic Presidents.

Iran IS truly outrageous. So is Saudi Arabia. And Pakistan. Egypt is better, but not by a whole lot.

But why Iran and not Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

= = =

As for Iraq, the liberal goal of nation building is a good and noble goal. We just have been messing up the execution, starting with Paul Bremer "not expecting" an insurgency.

As far as the Curtis LeMay option: we in the West have only gotten to our present state of mind after centuries of progress, following the Dark Ages. Our choices with the rest of the world are:

1) years of psychoanalysis to explain to them and convince them of the benefits of free and independent thought and markets and elections

2) take away their youngest generation and educate them here, and send them back to their countries free of the primitive misconceptions that pass for a culture in their home lands

3) Curtis LeMay

4) Give up all that we have gained over the centuries and adopt their way of life

After a nuke going off in an American city, there will be NO patience for 1) and 2).

Can they really leapfrog several centuries before their worst elements pull the trigger on a nuke?

And what about those among us who see no need for a jump forward out of the Dark Ages? They are in as bad mental shape as our adversaries are. How can any patient prudent course of action be followed when we are tying our own hands, instead of applying a firm grip on the rudder in difficult waters.

It will all blow up in the end.

I do not believe there will be a nuke in American city until at least a generation from now. IOW, until much of Western Europe is Muslim.

Actually, I HOPE Iranians lack the patience to wait that long.

"until much of Western Europe is Muslim"

Combine that nightmarish prospect with China's emergence and the ludicrous educational system in the U.S. and it all makes you pretty ill.

Progress in Afghanistan:

>>“I have been told clearly by Mr Hamid Karzai that Afghanistan’s Islamic image in the world must be maintained,’’ AIP quoted Mr Justice Shinwari as saying in an interview yesterday. (January 2006)

Mr Justice Shinwari said all cases would be decided in accordance with Islamic laws.

For instance, adulterers would be stoned to death when either of them or both were married. A murderer would have to pay blood money, or be executed in the manner in which the murder victim was killed, depending on the wishes of the victim’s relatives, he said.

“A thief’s hand would be cut off, and alcoholics and others would be punished under Islamic laws, but the condition would be that their crime is proved,’’ he said.

= = =

Yup, that's what I call progress in defeating Islamo nut cases.

If the last link is deemed dodgy, here are some others starting with an official US governmental agency:

http://www.uscirf.gov/mediaroom/press/2004/september/09132004_afghanistan.html

It appears Afghanistan's current Supreme Court chief justice is an Islamo-fascist nut job.

http://www.pacificcouncil.org/public/publications/articles/thier_012604.asp

>> Afghanistan's new Constitution is mostly a model of moderation, guaranteeing many rights and freedoms for men and women. But it has a very dangerous loophole: it states that no law can be contrary to the "beliefs and provisions" of Islam.

= = =

I support 100% using US military power to protect women's rights across ALL the Islamic countries.