Personalities on Fire

♠
“The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed.”

-- C. G. Jung

He has to be talking about LOVE. Or hate. Something explosive.

That is one of the prefatory quotes for Koontz's Watchers. Who says one cannot find edification in pop fiction?! You take what you can get in this world.

xXx

Personalities on Fire

♠
“The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed.”

-- C. G. Jung

He has to be talking about LOVE. Or hate. Something explosive.

That is one of the prefatory quotes for Koontz's Watchers. Who says one cannot find edification in pop fiction?! You take what you can get in this world.

xXx

Seymour Hersh: The Iran Plans

♠
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said that “allowing Iran to have the bomb is not on the table. We cannot have nukes being sent downstream to a terror network. It’s just too dangerous.” He added, “The whole internal debate is on which way to go”—in terms of stopping the Iranian program. It is possible, the adviser said, that Iran will unilaterally renounce its nuclear plans—and forestall the American action. “God may smile on us, but I don’t think so. The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is going to happen.”

-- Seymour M. Hersh, "The Iran Plans" in The New Yorker

We see a lot more saber rattling these days about possible American military moves to topple the Iranian regime. I have been wondering if this discussion has been brought on by the Administration in an effort to shake the regime's cage, in the optimistic hope that a real threat may get them to bow to the Western line that they cannot go nuclear. It is hard to imagine how the Americans can actually project that kind of power. Previously, it has been observed that mere bombing is not enough, and that invasion would be needed, as if that could be possible when we can scarcely contain the Iraqi situation.

Can't we all just get along?

xXx

Seymour Hersh: The Iran Plans

♠
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said that “allowing Iran to have the bomb is not on the table. We cannot have nukes being sent downstream to a terror network. It’s just too dangerous.” He added, “The whole internal debate is on which way to go”—in terms of stopping the Iranian program. It is possible, the adviser said, that Iran will unilaterally renounce its nuclear plans—and forestall the American action. “God may smile on us, but I don’t think so. The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is going to happen.”

-- Seymour M. Hersh, "The Iran Plans" in The New Yorker

We see a lot more saber rattling these days about possible American military moves to topple the Iranian regime. I have been wondering if this discussion has been brought on by the Administration in an effort to shake the regime's cage, in the optimistic hope that a real threat may get them to bow to the Western line that they cannot go nuclear. It is hard to imagine how the Americans can actually project that kind of power. Previously, it has been observed that mere bombing is not enough, and that invasion would be needed, as if that could be possible when we can scarcely contain the Iraqi situation.

Can't we all just get along?

xXx