Twisted spinster
Posted by aogMonday, 24 July 2006 at 19:07 TrackBack Ping URL

I am beginning to worry a bit about Orrin Judd and his accumulation of infallible pronouncements. Given the rate at which he generates axioms in his public belief system, an internal collision seems inevitable.

In one example, Judd starts with the claim that Hizballah is an ally of the USA and then laments how Hizballah’s plan is working. But if Hizballah is an ally, isn’t it a good thing that their plan is working, and it would be a bad thing to mess it up (by, as Judd suggests, hitting the regimes in Syria and Iran). But anyone who could write this:

One suspects that if you give them [Hizballah] a state their militancy will dissipate quickly, as has happened in Palestine.

is suffering from at least a mild case of reality dysfunction. Almost as soon as Hamas had control of a government they started working on a plan to start a war with Israel and succeeed. By that standard, Hizballah’s militancy has already evaporated (i.e., they successfully executed a plan to start a war with Israel). But I don’t think that’s what is meant by standard usage.

UPDATE: Cleaned up and clarified the language a bit.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
cjm Monday, 24 July 2006 at 19:51

hezbollah’s plan isn’t working; the israeli army has not been drawn into a bloody urban struggle. whether hezbollah will be destroyed or not i can’t say for sure (obviously) but here are my predictions:

  1. syria will be bought off and will give us all the information needed to destroy hezbollah from the air
  2. the iranian oil fields will be destroyed
  3. iran will attack the u.s. forces in iraq, out of blind fury
  4. the iranian infrastructure will be pulverized; the mullahs will be strung up and a u.s. friendly government will emerge
  5. saudi arabia and iraq will pump more to compensate for the loss of iranian oil
  6. china will have kim il jong eliminated; soko will pick up the tab
  7. islamic terrorism will be snuffed out before the 2008 presidential elections
  8. rudy giuliani will win the gop nomination and the general election
  9. the msm will collapse and be replaced, one by one, over the next 5 - 10 years
  10. israel will drive all palistinians out of gaza and the west bank, maybe into syria and other arab countries
  11. hugo chavez wil meet che before dear leader does
Michael Herdegen Tuesday, 25 July 2006 at 07:08


Is that satire ?

Or are those “real” predictions? ‘Cause if so, there are a lot of reasons why almost all of those won’t come to pass.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 25 July 2006 at 08:27

I must agree with Mr. Herdegen. I would bet against all of them except 8. Some of the others will happen (such as 9) but over a much longer time period.

cjm Tuesday, 25 July 2006 at 11:18

wait and see, it won’t take long to see if they come to pass or not. have some fun and make your own predictions — or do you think the status quo is in fact the stasis quo ? there are solid arguments/evidence behind each of those predictions:

  1. syria has the information and is in dire straits, hence the possibility they cash in at hezbollah’s (and possibly iran’s) expense
  2. we don’t get oil from iran, neither does israel, but china does; destroying them is a two-fer; russia won’t mind since their oil exports will increase in value.
  3. do you think the mullahs will just fade away ? or that they will remain in power forever , or will do nothing if sufficiently provoked ? they are rank amateurs and egomaniacs, clinically insane; they will do something stupid and the trap will close
  4. iran will be made an example of, we will fight them, and we will pulverize the country’s infrastructure rather than raze their cities (we already did this to iraq, in the gw1)
  5. once iran can’t make trouble in iraq (because we have flattened their economy and military) iraq will be able to reach peak pumping levels, and will want the money it brings in any way (or do you think they will decide not to cash in on record high prices ?); saudia arabia is done as a terror sponsor, they have been cornered by the u.s. and will do as we tell them
  6. kim il jong has outlived his usefulness and is causing a lot of trouble for china and basically pissing in their faces in a very public manner — do you think the prc will tolerate this, do you think they are france or holland ? they will cash him in soon before he loses value to them, vis a vis relations with the u.s. if the prc doesn’t do him in, his own army will
  7. with the state sponsors smashed, how will terrorism survive ? who will chance being involved with them when the consequences are so high ? do you think islamicism is unbeatable, that it will last a 1000 years ? ever see a close footbal game blow open in the fourth quarter ?
  8. omitted
  9. they are bleeding audience now, and have been for over 10 years; they are held in very low repute, already; they will be shown to have been in league with the terrorists and that will drive away even more people; they are incapable of rising to the challenges of new media because of their fixed cost structures; do you think they will regain audience some how ?
  10. do you think the palistinaians will somehow come to their senses and accept israel, do you think they will beat israel in a fight to the finish ? do you think israel will accept rapid dogs at their borders, permanently ? will the u.n. prevent them from being pushed out ?
  11. hugo is starving the real military and ruining the country’s economy, think he has another 70 years in office ? think he will be allowed to spread poison in central and south america permanently ? one word for the virgins here “allende”.
Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 25 July 2006 at 12:26
  1. Unlikely that Ba’ath have the information and even less that they’d prefer to cross Iran instead of the USA. What would the USA do if the Ba’ath refused to cooperate? Nothing, and the Ba’ath know it.
  2. Oil is fungible. For the same reason I dismiss the use of the oil weapon against the West and / or the USA, it won’t work against China either, except in a general “everybody pays more” way.
  3. As for the mullahs, yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if they faded away over time, like the Communists in Russia.
  4. I don’t believe that we will have the will to do anything serious about mullahs in Iran. Frankly, I have my doubts about any retaliation from the USA even if they commit nuclear genocide in Israel.
  5. Dependent on other predictions.
  6. The PRC would have to admit error and discredit their own ideology. Not likely.
  7. Terrorism is cheap. How have the Tamil Tigers persisted all these years? Or the Lord’s Resistance Army (note: neither is Caliphascist based)? I think they’ll lose, but I predict it will be a long term fading, not a sudden collapse. My model is the Red Terror in Europe and Japan in the second half of the 20th century.
  8. omitted
  9. Yes, they’ll continue to bleed audience but again, I doubt your timescale.
  10. I wouldn’t be surprised by Israel chosing rabid dogs on their doorstep over doing what it would take to get rid of them. The UN might well prevent it, they have in the past. I predict that eventually, the Palestinians will surrender and become a liberal democracy, but I predict they will be the very last polity in the Middle East to do so (even the Saudi Entity will get there first).
  11. One word for the overly optimistic on this one: “Castro”.

P.S. To get the cool numbered lists, put a # followed by a space before each line, instead of the number. Try it out via Preview. If you use a * instead of a #, you’ll get a bullet list.

cjm Tuesday, 25 July 2006 at 13:12
  1. syria is/was the master of lebannon, they know everything about the place, unless you think they just let hezbollah do what they want there
  2. destroying the iranian oil fields is primarily to force the collapse of the iranian war making capability; hurting china is just an added bonus
  3. the nutjob in charge of iran has painted himself into corner with all his appocalyptic talk; if he doesn’t fight the u.s. then iran loses its bid to become the regional master
  4. there isn’t the political will to initiate conflict with iran openly, therefore they have to be provoked into attacking us, hence the destruction of their oil fields (or an economic blockade); once they “bite” we can smash the hell out of them in a week or so (no need or desire to occupy them)
  5. pass
  6. if kim il jopng ‘passes” in his sleep, or is killed in an ‘accident” there is no need to admit failure on the part of the prc
  7. long term terorist groups survive because they are useful to the government as a way to scare the population into voting a certain way; as soon as the ira tried to kill high level government officials there was an immediate wave of counter attacks that wiped out dozens of top ira people — the uk government knew who they were all along and where they were at all times
  8. pass
  9. pass
  10. i sense the time is ripe for a leveling of accounts; if iran makes enough covering chaos in the middle east, israel will have the opportunity to solve the palistinian problem permanently; already hamas is throwing in the towel and trying to disengage from the trouble they started recently
  11. who is hugo’s cccp patron ? :)

[Preview is your friend — AOG]

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 25 July 2006 at 13:23

Castro lost CCCP support when the CCCP collapsed. That was what, 15 years ago? And Mugabe’s still in change of Zambia, isn’t he, without any big patrons? Not even Chavez has done that good a job of running a functional nation in to the ground.

Michael Herdegen Wednesday, 26 July 2006 at 00:22

No.’s 3 & 4 are dependent on #2 occuring, but NO industrial nation has any interest in destroying the Iranian oilfields. In this case, the oil is more valuable than human lives - we’d flatten the cities before we levelled the oil field infrastructures.

America has already fought (at least) two wars over Middle Eastern oil - Desert Storm and the current Iraqi pacification project were undertaken mainly to maintain the world’s free access to Mid-east oil.

Arabia and Iraq CAN’T pump more to make up for the loss of Iran’s production. They’re already at or near to maximum output.

That’s why oil prices are so high, because there’s no spare capacity worldwide. While new fields are being developed, and older ones are seeing additional development, it takes a long time to bring new oil production on-line.

Islamic terrorism can’t be snuffed out, just contained, and that won’t happen in the next two years. It probably will decrease somewhat as the U.S. moves mostly out of Iraq, but until Iran stops funding terror, it’ll continue to be an issue.

As for the msm, I agree with AOG. Right concept, too ambitious a timeline. Life magazine took twenty-five years to die after television was firmly established.

Israel won’t drive all of the Palistinians out of Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli gov’t doesn’t have the domestic political support to do that, even if they thought that they could weather the international repercussions. Further, America would have to split with Israel if they did so.

Post a comment