QUID HAS HEARD that someone really needs to go give Councilman Bob Roth a hug. No seriously, someone go give that man a hug. Maybe even ask him how his day is going. Maybe buy him a milkshake or something. Just glancing at the man’s social media accounts, by all accounts, he’s wound tighter than Ted Cruz’s imagination. Despite holding a non-partisan position with the city, it’s pretty clear to Quid where he falls on the political spectrum: He’s giddily jumped off the right side past conservatism and into comedy. Among the man’s wonderful daily insights are musings on pending nuclear warfare via Iran, pending nuclear warfare via electing Hillary Clinton in 2016, and pending nuclear warfare if the state Legislature mandates snow tires to drive on I-70. Of course, Quid is always for free speech and Councilman Roth, you’re always free to speak your mind all the time — Quid just loves it. But seriously, you doin’ OK?

AND QUID HAS HEARD that the annual book of bupkis has hit Denver’s streets, and as always, Westword’s 100-pages of “back, crack and sack wax” ads is just full of Denver navel-gazing. What’s the “Best Place to Wear Purple on a Tuesday if your name is Molly?” Well, of course, that’s in Denver. Did you know that the “Best Place to Be In Denver” is in Denver too? The annual list, which is among the metro area’s most read newspapers anymore — including this rag — saw fit to award Aurora with only a handful of honors, despite having eleventy billion people live within its boundaries. Among the Aurora award winners included in Westword’s distinguished list were musings on “Best Restaurant on Havana Street” which realistically couldn’t have been anywhere in Denver (I bet they regret that category) and “Best Ethiopian Food.” The book was full of snubs to Aurora’s theater scene, personalities, restaurants, diversity, intelligence and charms. Call your book “Best of the West of Yosemite” next year.

AND QUID HAS HEARD Aurora’s municipal elections are about to get waaaay more interesting. The beat on the street is that deep pockets that usually sway Denver elections are looking to play in the metro area’s largest suburb — and we’re not talking about developers, those guys have been around for a while. Stay tuned Aurora, your city council could be dramatically different next year.

And that’s all the news that fits

11 replies on “QUIDNUNC: Despite what Denver newspapers report, life is often better out here”

  1. Really, Quid, you should take Iran’s nuclear threat a little more seriously. If Iran gets the weapons — which looks highly likely now — I think we’ll see New York and Washington turned into smoldering piles of radioactive rubble a few years later. Probably a couple of nukes detonated simultaneously from trucks or something like that.

      1. Why incredible? Iran is ruled by Islamic fundamentalists with a long history of supporting terrorism and terrorist groups, and who believe that Allah will reward them for killing Americans. I don’t think the terrorist attack I’m talking about would be any more remarkable than, say, the 1983 truck-bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut.

        When I speak to people who think the possibility of an Iranian nuke attack is a joke, they usually believe one of two things:

        (a) Iran can’t nuke us because our Air Force will stop them.
        These people are thinking of an old, Cold-War-style attack by missile or airplane. I agree that’s unlikely, but there are better ways to hit the United States. It wouldn’t be too hard to smuggle bomb parts across our porous border, assemble a weapon here, and transport it by truck or barge to its target.

        (b) Iran wouldn’t dare attack us because of our massive retaliatory capability.
        The reason America and Russia never nuked each other (to this point) is that the leaders of both countries are somewhat rational people who respect the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Each side knows that any attack on the other side would result in the quick destruction of its own civilization, and that serves as a deterrent. By contrast, Iran’s leaders are Islamic religious fanatics who believe that Allah will give them a heavenly reward for taking down “The Great Satan,” regardless of what the earthly aftermath of the attack might be.

        I’d encourage you to read up on nuclear weapons technology and Iran’s history of terrorism.

        1. You do know that since 9/11 we have stopped hundreds of attempts to attack the US in the ways you have outlined above, right? And does it make sense as a matter of strategy to try to blow up some part of the US if you know you are inviting a massive multi-national use of force on your entire country in return?

          Personally, I think Iran has less interest in attacking the US than their radical leaders might have in creating havoc in the middle east. If they have actually created nuclear warheads, they’ll have to deal with Israel and its own secret inventory of 100-200 nuclear warheads.

          One thing is certain. If we do nothing, Iran will definitely continue their efforts to get what they need to achieve their goal. We’d have in place a regime of inspections that, if violated, would immediately indicate there were problems.

          What is your alternative? Should we declare war on Iran and put hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground and invade? I’m interested in your thoughts.

          1. You say that since 9/11, we’ve stopped hundreds of attempts to attack the U.S. in the ways I’ve outlined above (i.e., with nuclear weapons)??? Nonsense. Security has improved since 9/11, and we’ve stopped smaller attacks involving conventional bombs and airplanes, but nothing even close to the scale of nuclear terrorism. And no “massive multi-national use of force” is going to deter an attack commanded by Allah and performed for religious reasons.

            Actually, 9/11 is one of the reasons I think we’ll see the scenario I’ve outlined. The terrorists’ plan that day wasn’t just to kill a few thousand Americans, but to take down the United States by wrecking the economy and killing the President and most members of Congress. The New York part of the attack was successful, but the Washington part was bungled. As always, terrorists will eventually return to finish the job. Next time it will be with far deadlier weapons.

            And I’m sure destroying Israel is Ayatollah Khamenei’s highest priority, but the problem is that Israel has actual border security, so attacking it with truck bombs won’t work. Iran will have to wait until it can put a warhead on an IRBM. When Iran finally succeeds at that, Israel probably won’t able to prevent its own destruction, but it could certainly wipe out all of Iran and most of the Middle East in response. If the “nuclear war” Quid takes so lightly is going to start, this is probably how it would happen.

            My alternative? Sorry, there’s no magic answer at this point, and the most tempting possibility is to wish that Iran hadn’t been allowed to enrich uranium right up to the brink of nuclear breakout capability. I don’t think the current negotiations will help, since Iran will never agree to anything that shuts down its nuclear program. The negotiations are only giving Iran more time to finish its work. In the end, I think only a forced Iranian regime change or the destruction of Iran’s nuclear stockpile and enrichment facilities might head off an even greater disaster, and I really don’t think the American public will stomach either of those. Maybe we’ll just have to follow Dan Aykroyd’s old SNL advice for living in the post-nuclear age: “Don’t eat anything, don’t drink anything, and if you own a lead suit, wear it.”

          2. Good and thoughtful response. That said, I think you are underestimating our ability to detect and deter future domestic attacks. Not to say it couldn’t happen, but I think it would be safe to say that our preparedness today is considerably greater than it was on 9/10.

            If I were the Ayatollah in Iran, I’d be more focused on a stealth attack on Israel, though that would be tough, too. You make the destruction of Iran’s nuclear stockpile or enrichment facilities seem like an easy do, but military strategists would strongly disagree with you.

            The other thing to consider is the delicate balance that makes the middle east a tinderbox that any military action could quite easily explode and create unintended consequences as we have seen in our adventures in Afganistan, Pakistan, and Iraq (see ISIS for starters).

            Well, we’re done here. Good exchange. Have a good week.

          3. I’ve read that the U.S. has radiation detectors in Washington, D.C. and certain other major cities to help cope with the threat of a terrorist nuke or dirty bomb. Good idea, but I’d hate to think our strategy for heading off an attack would be to try to stop a nuke-bearing truck a few miles from its intended destination, as in a scene from a bad action movie. Of course there are other lines of defense, and we’ll have to hope they work better than they did in the case of the Boston Marathon bombers.

            I think the Ayatollah’s goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth by any means possible, whether stealthy or not, but an IRBM carrying a nuke would be a great way to do the job if Iran can miniaturize a warhead sufficiently.

            And no, I never claimed that destroying Iran’s nuclear stockpile and enrichment facilities would be easy, seeing as how some of the facilities are buried under 70 feet of concrete. But the rumor is that the U.S. has a new generation of bunker-busting bombs that might be able to get the job done if it came to that. I doubt Israel has anything comparable.

            Finally, when you speak of upsetting the delicate balance in the Middle East by taking action, you should consider that doing nothing could also upset it. It’s long been rumored that Saudi Arabia financed much of Pakistan’s nuclear program in return for the right to buy back atomic weapons at a future time. If Iran gets its bomb, all bets are off. It’s easy to see the cost of doing something and harder to see the cost of doing nothing, but sometimes doing nothing turns out to be the most expensive option of all.

          4. The middle east is a graveyard of the foreign policy failures of US-led adventures (and Great Britain earlier), the most recent being in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than a few of the current crop of Republicans in Congress, and most if not all the GOP candidates seem to be embracing the neocon philosophy of proactive military action when six world powers have instead chosen to negotiate the current agreement with Iran. The agreement is laden with many deal-killers if Iran reneges on their end of the deal. Listen, we’re not going to agree, and a little point-counterpoint in a minor newspaper isn’t going to do much more than write these messages back and forth, so I’ll sign off now. You might, however, want to check out a long interview with John Kerry from yesterday’s News Hour where he answers many of the points brought up by his critics. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/iran-must-disclose-past-nuclear-military-activities-final-deal-says-kerry/

          5. We’ll agree to disagree on past U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. You think it was irresponsible for the U.S. to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, while I think it would have been irresponsible not to, considering what was at stake. No doubt I’m in the minority these days. But remember the good old days when Libya abandoned its nuclear program voluntarily just because it knew the U.S. President meant business? Those days are long gone.

            And I got a laugh out of the link you posted, because it’s clear that even Judy Woodruff is skeptical of Kerry’s claims, and she’s a liberal PBS reporter whom I’d expect to be on his side. The trouble with Kerry’s “peace agreement” is that Iran won’t actually agree to anything that might stop its nuclear program. Wait and see.

            Your use of the cliché “neocon” to paint a cartoon caricature of Republicans says to me that you’re not really interested in having an intelligent discussion, so please feel free to “sign off” whenever you like. The only reason I’m discussing this with you is that you took a shot at my original comment, which was directed at Quid, not you.

  2. Ah yes, Aurora, Colorado, that Athens of the west. Cultural richness from border to border. And the best chain restaurants and thrift ships this side of Byers. How could Westword have missed that!

Comments are closed.