If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Someone at DOD has started asking the right questions vis-a-vis Iran   (wired.com) divider line 208
    More: Followup, bomb Iran, Iran, air forces, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Martin Dempsey, Norton Schwartz  
•       •       •

8960 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Mar 2012 at 4:34 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



208 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-01 04:37:29 AM
What Would Bombing Iran Do, Exactly?

I believe the answer is KILL. It would KILL them. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL.(starts jumping up and down) KILL, KILL (start jumping up and down with me) KILL, KILL

And then they'll come over, pin a medal on you,
send you down the hall and say, "You're our boy".
 
2012-03-01 04:41:41 AM
You mean besides making the MIC more money and driving oil prices higher? Well, it would kill a lot of people that admire the "West". Not to mention it's about 4 times larger than that country what tried to kill G-Shrubs daddy-o...
 
2012-03-01 04:48:51 AM
What Would Bombing Iran Do, Exactly?

Kill brown people.
 
2012-03-01 04:56:47 AM
FTA - "There's a tendency for all of us to go tactical too quickly, and worry about weaponeering and things of that nature,"

I really can't imagine why that would be the case.

www.leominsterrobotics.com

iraqslogger.powweb.com

daryllang.com

civiliancontractors.files.wordpress.com

disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-03-01 05:02:57 AM

overfienduglar: What Would Bombing Iran Do, Exactly?

Kill brown people.


A goal we can all aspire to.
 
2012-03-01 05:04:41 AM
"eat my dust."
 
2012-03-01 05:05:20 AM
Someone at DOD has started asking the right questions vis-a-vis Iran

Not quite, subby. This is old news. I've been posting stuff like from 2008 to this year2012
All of these links come from 2008 or earlier
According to study, conducted by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, Iran's uranium enrichment sites are too widely dispersed and too well protected and concealed to be destroyed in an aerial strike.

US experts say Iran would be able to quickly repair damage in wake of military strike on its nuclear facilities; moreover, attack by Israel, US would boost support for Iranian regime, strengthen its resolve to acquire nuclear weapons, study warns

Amid rising speculation about the possibility of an Israeli or U.S. bombing attack on Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month, a major study produced for the U.S. Air Force by a top defence think tank concluded that U.S. military action against Iran was "likely to have negative effects for the United States".

US Army Report: Israel lacks the military capability to locate and destroy Iranian nuclear assets. The report said the Israel Air Force cannot operate at such long distances from its bases.

Pentagon chiefs fear that Israeli plans for an attack on Iran's nuclear programme will fail to destroy the facilities because neither the CIA nor Mossad knows where every base is located


Thats a rough sampling. Anyone should open those up if someone comes back with bu..bu.. bunker busters.. seeing how Pentagon war planners have concluded that [the US's] largest conventional bomb [which is much bigger than the GBU 28's that Israel recieved] isn't yet capable of destroying Iran's most heavily fortified underground facilities

This has going on for a bit now

2009 - Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran
Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex.

CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration.

"The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran."

Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.

Thats right. Bush backed off the Iran stuff when he backed off the neocons. A reminder...
2008 Neocons Lash Out at White House for Diplomatic Overtures to Iran

The Bush administration's recent diplomatic overtures toward Iran have unleashed a torrent of criticism from neoconservatives and have fueled concerns in Israel that Washington is shelving the option of using military force against Tehran's nuclear facilities.
After months of rejecting the possibility of negotiating with Iran until it suspends nuclear enrichment, the administration sent a high-level envoy July 20 to European-led talks with Iranian diplomats on the nuclear issue. Washington also has suggested a willingness to open a low-level diplomatic mission in Tehran for the first time since 1979. And Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has signaled a preference for a diplomatic solution to the standoff.
Veteran Iran hands see the developments as evidence that President Bush has decided, at least for now, to give the State Department the lead on Iran policy. The White House's shift has infuriated the advocates of regime change who held sway in Bush's first term but have since been gradually sidelined.
"This is a major shift, but I see it in the context of any second term administration's Hail Mary pass to secure a legacy," said Michael Rubin, a former Iran analyst at the Pentagon who is now working at the American Enterprise Institute. "What we see now is the State Department running the show. [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice is a chameleon, and will always go with whatever side is up."
While rumors of impending military operations by Israel or the United States against Iran continue to surface, the latest developments mark the second time in the past year that an official American decision has drawn the ire of both defense hawks in the United States and Israel's political and military establishment. This past December a report representing the consensus view of America's 16 intelligence agencies asserted that Iran had likely stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
The intelligence estimate prompted furious reactions from Israeli officials. The most prominent critic of the assessment was Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is scheduled to travel to Washington to try to prevent the Bush administration from shelving the military option.


..of course, just in 2006, you have the more familiar Bushisms of "...the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel." 2006, you also had the familiar Israel: Iran 'months' from making nukes - Prime minister says unilateral action not being considered type of statements and Tony Blair refusing to back an Iran strike highlighting a 2006 report on the Iran crisis warning that neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are on "collision course" with Tehran.

To bring that full circle with the headline, look at those 2006 reports that Tony Blair was reading.
 
2012-03-01 05:06:33 AM
well, that was supposed to read (in full):

-enters time machine and sets date to july 2012, then says "eat my dust".

i had a bracket error!!
 
2012-03-01 05:08:02 AM
And the other option is to......what, exactly? Sit back and just let them get a bomb, let them continue threatening neighbors, let them keep supporting the Syrian government's agenda of genocide? I'm sure the Israelis and Saudis are perfectly fine with that plan, Iran would never constantly, daily threaten to blow them up with it. Your response is "Well, they would be signing their own death warrant if they did." No shiat, these people would do that gladly if it meant they could just really stick it to their enemies just once. And when they do, your response to 70,000 dead Israelis or 70,000 dead Saudis or 70,000 dead Iraqis will be "Well, we didn't think they were crazy enough to actually do it....Our bad."

We'll isolate them, just like we "isolated" North Korea. That's worked out real well. They keep threatening our allies and we send them care packages, ransom, tribute.

No, what you want is to just sit back, enact "sanctions", and hope that they stop at building at a hundred bombs.
 
2012-03-01 05:29:43 AM

VRaptor117: And the other option is to......what, exactly? Sit back and just let them get a bomb, let them continue threatening neighbors, let them keep supporting the Syrian government's agenda of genocide?


They're not working on a bomb. So stop with the false pretenses.
 
2012-03-01 05:31:48 AM
VRaptor117

The option is to mind your own farking business, assjack. You think we can invade them?? They have 4 times the land mass as Iraq. How'd that work out for us? How's Afghanistan coming along? Why don't you want to spend that money here for things that WE need? fark Israel/
 
2012-03-01 05:32:16 AM
fta: The past week has seen lots of high-profile leaks tamping down the case for an attack, including doubts from within the U.S. spy apparatus that Iran is actually working on a bomb and the likelihood of Iranian reprisal attacks inflaming the region and prompting terrorist attacks on U.S. interests and assets.

It's nice to know that their are some cooler heads prevailing at some level.

As far as I can tell in order to completely shut down the multiple deep underground sites the enrichment facilities are located at would require a type of bunker buster that only the US military possesses. At one point Israel asked for control of one such and Bush had to tell them no. Ergo if this goes down it will be the US doing the heavy lifting and getting all the blame, of course. The pre-emptive war philosophy is well past it's best before date, I hope people appreciate this. The fact that their are highly selective leaks coming out right now to counter the current round of saber rattling derp is, at once, both reassuring and scary.
 
2012-03-01 05:41:55 AM
Spencer Ackerman is a cool-ass mofo, and if you are hip to the twitter you would do well to follow him @attackerman
 
2012-03-01 05:42:18 AM

Alphax: VRaptor117: And the other option is to......what, exactly? Sit back and just let them get a bomb, let them continue threatening neighbors, let them keep supporting the Syrian government's agenda of genocide?

They're not working on a bomb. So stop with the false pretenses.


What retarded country would develop a uranium enrichment program just for domestic power production and "medical reasons". Get your head out of your ass and into the real world. This isn't Candyland.
 
2012-03-01 05:43:14 AM

VRaptor117: Alphax: VRaptor117: And the other option is to......what, exactly? Sit back and just let them get a bomb, let them continue threatening neighbors, let them keep supporting the Syrian government's agenda of genocide?

They're not working on a bomb. So stop with the false pretenses.

What retarded country would develop a uranium enrichment program just for domestic power production and "medical reasons". Get your head out of your ass and into the real world. This isn't Candyland.


I said stop lying.
 
2012-03-01 05:44:05 AM

FlippityFlap: VRaptor117

The option is to mind your own farking business, assjack. You think we can invade them?? They have 4 times the land mass as Iraq. How'd that work out for us? How's Afghanistan coming along? Why don't you want to spend that money here for things that WE need? fark Israel/


Yeah, let's just mind our own business and let a hostile nation threaten our allies and our critical energy supply. 1914 called, it wants its outdated worldview back.

Moron.
 
2012-03-01 05:44:21 AM
good to see they are gaming a range of options.
 
2012-03-01 05:47:15 AM

New developments

Effort to change U.S. red line on Iran has Senate Dems worried about war

Is America's red line on Iran moving?

A new bipartisan resolution introduced Thursday on Capitol Hill is part of a growing effort to shift the longstanding U.S. red line from Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon to having the capability to build one. Such a shift would bring U.S. policy in line with Israel's approach.

The resolution -- a nonbinding Senate statement backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee - calls on the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring even the capability to build nuclear weapons.


Some background on that article. Notably
"Often AIPAC-backed Congressional initiatives start as non-binding language (in a resolution or a letter) and then show up in binding legislation. Once members of Congress have already signed on to a policy in non-binding form, it is much harder for them to oppose it when it shows up later in a bill that, if passed, will have the full force of law."


Tough Senate Bill Takes Aim at Iran
As AIPAC Conference Nears, Push for Coordination With Israel
With tension between Jerusalem and Washington on the rise over the preferred policy for dealing with Iran, supporters of Israel are urging lawmakers to back a resolution moving the goalposts in this debate closer to the views of Benjamin Netanyahu's government.
A proposed Senate resolution, supported by the pro-Israel lobby, would shift America's red line in dealing with Iran from preventing the Islamic Republic's acquisition of nuclear weapons to stopping it before it achieves "nuclear capabilities." Authors of the resolution believe that it is the only way to ensure that Iran ceases to be a threat to the region.
Opponents see it as moving America too close to a declaration of war.
The resolution, now gaining signatures in the Senate, will be the legislative centerpiece of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as it convenes for its annual Washington conference, to take place in early March. The conference is expected to serve as the key arena for discussing American-Israeli differences over Iran as it hosts President Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Republican presidential candidates at a time when experts believe that Israel is nearing a decision on whether or not to launch a military strike.


Netanyahu will ask Obama to threaten Iran strike
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to publicly harden his line against Iran during a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on March 5, according to a senior Israeli official.

Israel wants Obama to make further-reaching declarations than the vague assertion that "all options are on the table," the official said. In particular, Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain "red lines," said the official; Israel feels this will increase pressure on Iran by making clear that there exists a real U.S. threat.

Officials in both Jerusalem and Washington acknowledge a serious lack of trust between Israel and the United States with regard to the issue of a possible strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. A senior U.S. official who is involved in preparing Netanyahu's visit to the United States - and who asked to remain anonymous - said intensive preparations are underway to guarantee the success of the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama and to bridge this lack of trust.
 
2012-03-01 05:47:18 AM
"and the deeper you go the harder it gets."

Ain't that the truth!
 
2012-03-01 05:53:28 AM
we need to game options. that's the starting point. that's what they are there for. if we have to respond to some geopolitical development we don't just want to go in guns blazing, dropping ayatollahs here, there and everywhere - we want a range of proper responses at the ready at any time
 
2012-03-01 06:13:01 AM
U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb

Link (new window)

emails indicate Stratfor discovered Israel already destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities

Link (new window)

So, there's absolutely no evidence still that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, and Israel may have "secretly" taken out any nuclear facilities, there are people dying by the thousands in the country next door, and we can't even offer them humanitarian aid, yet we're supposed to get involved in a pre-emptive strike for a country whose government has been lying to us all along?

Um,. no.

Go f*ck yourselves, Bibi and the Congressional warmongers.
 
2012-03-01 06:14:13 AM
I'm balls-deep in 'Ayatollah Assahollah' T-shirts stock, so...
 
2012-03-01 06:16:05 AM
Damn I thought all the neocons had gone into hiding and now one turns up on a Fark thread
 
2012-03-01 06:21:56 AM

Hector Remarkable: What Would Bombing Iran Do, Exactly?

I believe the answer is KILL. It would KILL them. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL.(starts jumping up and down) KILL, KILL (start jumping up and down with me) KILL, KILL

And then they'll come over, pin a medal on you,
send you down the hall and say, "You're our boy".


+1 Arlo
 
2012-03-01 06:39:10 AM
Nice work Joint Chiefs of Staff.
 
2012-03-01 06:39:32 AM
It's a delicate time for Schwartz to slam on the brakes of a potential war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit President Obama at the White House on Friday.

Yes, I'm sure this is all a complete coincidence, and not the US pushing collectively back against a mad warmonger.
 
2012-03-01 06:46:28 AM
Gen. Norton Schwartz for President
2016
 
2012-03-01 06:50:19 AM

VRaptor117: And the other option is to......what, exactly? Sit back and just let them get a bomb, let them continue threatening neighbors, let them keep supporting the Syrian government's agenda of genocide? I'm sure the Israelis and Saudis are perfectly fine with that plan, Iran would never constantly, daily threaten to blow them up with it. Your response is "Well, they would be signing their own death warrant if they did." No shiat, these people would do that gladly if it meant they could just really stick it to their enemies just once. And when they do, your response to 70,000 dead Israelis or 70,000 dead Saudis or 70,000 dead Iraqis will be "Well, we didn't think they were crazy enough to actually do it....Our bad."

We'll isolate them, just like we "isolated" North Korea. That's worked out real well. They keep threatening our allies and we send them care packages, ransom, tribute.

No, what you want is to just sit back, enact "sanctions", and hope that they stop at building at a hundred bombs.


You, sir or madam, are crazy, and you need to stop feeding your brain so much propaganda. Why don't you read some of those nice blue links above you?
 
2012-03-01 06:51:49 AM
Israel is the Connie Corleone of our global family.
 
2012-03-01 06:56:04 AM
FTA: It's a delicate time for Schwartz to slam on the brakes of a potential war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit President Obama at the White House on Friday. He's unhappy with another U.S. general, Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for saying last week that bombing Iran was "not prudent."

Who the hell does Netanyahu think he is? This is the United States of America! We are the greatest nation in the world. We don't kowtow to other nations. We don't jump just because someone leader from the mid-east tells us to. Are we the policeman for the world? We have a $15 trillion deficit! Remember how all summer we heard that we couldn't afford our wars with Libya and Yemen. How is Obama planning to pay for another war with Iran!?
 
2012-03-01 06:56:24 AM

quatchi: fta: The past week has seen lots of high-profile leaks tamping down the case for an attack, including doubts from within the U.S. spy apparatus that Iran is actually working on a bomb and the likelihood of Iranian reprisal attacks inflaming the region and prompting terrorist attacks on U.S. interests and assets.

It's nice to know that their are some cooler heads prevailing at some level.

As far as I can tell in order to completely shut down the multiple deep underground sites the enrichment facilities are located at would require a type of bunker buster that only the US military possesses. At one point Israel asked for control of one such and Bush had to tell them no. Ergo if this goes down it will be the US doing the heavy lifting and getting all the blame, of course. The pre-emptive war philosophy is well past it's best before date, I hope people appreciate this. The fact that their are highly selective leaks coming out right now to counter the current round of saber rattling derp is, at once, both reassuring and scary.


And let's not forget what we'd be trying to shutdown if we did try this nonsense; a nuclear programs that has clearly been for civilian purposes since 2003, and which most people didn't think was pursuing a weapon even before that. Under the NPT, Iran has every right to a civilian enrichment program, and as for why they'd feel they need that capability when most countries just buy their nuke fuel from the US, well, one needs only look to our decades of crippling economic sanctions against them to see why the Iranians might not consider us or any State we can influence a reliable supplier.
 
2012-03-01 07:00:49 AM

GAT_00: It's a delicate time for Schwartz to slam on the brakes of a potential war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit President Obama at the White House on Friday.

Yes, I'm sure this is all a complete coincidence, and not the US pushing collectively back against a mad warmonger.


No one in the US media, not even Wired, is going to ever say that directly, though. It'd be nice if they did, because I really think this particular issue is a fight AIPAC would lose badly in the current US political environment. The US people don't want another war, and if AIPAC and Israel were seen to be attempting to drag us into one I think it'd back-fire pretty badly on them, which in turn would open up lots of space for US pols on other Israel-concerning issues.
 
2012-03-01 07:10:23 AM

Heron: GAT_00: It's a delicate time for Schwartz to slam on the brakes of a potential war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit President Obama at the White House on Friday.

Yes, I'm sure this is all a complete coincidence, and not the US pushing collectively back against a mad warmonger.

No one in the US media, not even Wired, is going to ever say that directly, though. It'd be nice if they did, because I really think this particular issue is a fight AIPAC would lose badly in the current US political environment. The US people don't want another war, and if AIPAC and Israel were seen to be attempting to drag us into one I think it'd back-fire pretty badly on them, which in turn would open up lots of space for US pols on other Israel-concerning issues.


Stop making sense. We must bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran...
 
2012-03-01 07:12:05 AM

VRaptor117: Alphax: VRaptor117: And the other option is to......what, exactly? Sit back and just let them get a bomb, let them continue threatening neighbors, let them keep supporting the Syrian government's agenda of genocide?

They're not working on a bomb. So stop with the false pretenses.

What retarded country would develop a uranium enrichment program just for domestic power production and "medical reasons". Get your head out of your ass and into the real world. This isn't Candyland.


Japan, a world leader in various high-tech industries such as silicon production, super-conductors, medical imaging, simulation design, robotics, reactor design, nuclear engineering, and many others. Brazil. Spain. France. Germany. England. Every one of the Nordic States. Argentina. Pretty much every country that has nuclear reactors has, at one point, had an enrichment program. They might not have it now because it isn't economically feasible, but I'd imagine a country that has been under embargo by the producer of 80% of the world's enriched uranium since the 70s might have a different economic calculus than other states.
 
2012-03-01 07:14:40 AM

mykhaile: "eat my dust socks."


3.bp.blogspot.com

\tv edit
 
2012-03-01 07:15:34 AM

VRaptor117: FlippityFlap: VRaptor117

The option is to mind your own farking business, assjack. You think we can invade them?? They have 4 times the land mass as Iraq. How'd that work out for us? How's Afghanistan coming along? Why don't you want to spend that money here for things that WE need? fark Israel/

Yeah, let's just mind our own business and let a hostile nation threaten our allies and our critical energy supply. 1914 called, it wants its outdated worldview back.

Moron.


I have farkied you as "Michael Boltons' alt".
 
2012-03-01 07:21:54 AM

Heron: GAT_00: It's a delicate time for Schwartz to slam on the brakes of a potential war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit President Obama at the White House on Friday.

Yes, I'm sure this is all a complete coincidence, and not the US pushing collectively back against a mad warmonger.

No one in the US media, not even Wired, is going to ever say that directly, though. It'd be nice if they did, because I really think this particular issue is a fight AIPAC would lose badly in the current US political environment. The US people don't want another war, and if AIPAC and Israel were seen to be attempting to drag us into one I think it'd back-fire pretty badly on them, which in turn would open up lots of space for US pols on other Israel-concerning issues.


I'm finding a scary correlation between the beatings of these war drums and those we heard back in 2003 before we foolishly invaded Iraq. My tinfoil hat aside I wouldn't be surprised if they timed it for psychological purposes, February and march being the most stressful part of the year, seasonal depression and/or cabin fever. This allows for a "fark it" attitude from the public when it comes to colossally stupid decisions.

In this case, I'm reassured by the military asking obvious questions. That and our commander in chief isn't a complete shill. Cooler heads must prevail.
 
2012-03-01 07:22:32 AM
May the Schwartz be wlith you.

\i390.photobucket.com
 
2012-03-01 07:29:48 AM

OneManArmy: I'm finding a scary correlation between the beatings of these war drums and those we heard back in 2003 before we foolishly invaded Iraq. My tinfoil hat aside I wouldn't be surprised if they timed it for psychological purposes, February and march being the most stressful part of the year, seasonal depression and/or cabin fever. This allows for a "fark it" attitude from the public when it comes to colossally stupid decisions.


On another note, I read a while back that Romney hired most of Bush's neocons, so if somehow he were to become president, we could very well have war with Iran. Honestly the only reason I think we haven't yet is that Iran doesn't play an important part in the bible.
 
2012-03-01 07:32:35 AM

Gwyrddu: Honestly the only reason I think we haven't yet is that Iran doesn't play an important part in the bible.


Just a clarification, I mean the only reason Bush didn't declare war with Iran is because it's lack of biblical importance. Obama I think is too either too smart to go to war with Iran and/or just relies on what his top general say we need, who are smart enough to know going to war with Iran is a bad idea.
 
2012-03-01 07:40:39 AM

BitwiseShift: May the Schwartz be wlith you.

\[i390.photobucket.com image 111x95]


He's actually a pretty cool dude in person, and in this case, even if we had absolute, solid gold plated proof that Iran had nukes, he's asking the right questions.

There are clearly forces in the Iranian government that want to hurt Israel and want nuclear weapons. The trouble is determining how realistic they are and how capable they are. It's kind of like a police officer reading someone's ranty, neo-nazi blog - is the redneck just a loudmouth yahoo, or the next Ted Kaczynksi?
 
2012-03-01 07:41:55 AM

Gwyrddu: I mean the only reason Bush didn't declare war with Iran is because it's lack of biblical importance.


Bush dropped the neocons late in his second term, really pissing them off - especially on Iran. Before in 2006, Bush was saying things like
"...the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel."


This is another line regarding that

Greenwald
the neoconservatives left Bush with the overarching instruction - namely, the only thing that he should concern himself with, the only thing that really matters, is Iran. Forget every other issue - the welfare of the American people, every other region around the world - except the one that matters most:
Everyone seems to forget how Bush ended up dumping the neocons late in his second term - leading to the (sometimes) confusing epithets of "just like Bush" for Obama when these were sometimes simply comparisons between this post neocon policy.

See 2012-03-01 05:05:20 AM above.
 
2012-03-01 07:45:29 AM
Yet ultimately the General and all of his troops have sworn to do the president's bidding. Hopefully, if we go in we will have a plan to leave. Of course, that hasn't happened in any war since WW2, so I am doubting that.
 
2012-03-01 07:45:38 AM

quatchi: fta: The past week has seen lots of high-profile leaks tamping down the case for an attack, including doubts from within the U.S. spy apparatus that Iran is actually working on a bomb and the likelihood of Iranian reprisal attacks inflaming the region and prompting terrorist attacks on U.S. interests and assets.

It's nice to know that their are some cooler heads prevailing at some level.

As far as I can tell in order to completely shut down the multiple deep underground sites the enrichment facilities are located at would require a type of bunker buster that only the US military possesses. At one point Israel asked for control of one such and Bush had to tell them no. Ergo if this goes down it will be the US doing the heavy lifting and getting all the blame, of course. The pre-emptive war philosophy is well past it's best before date, I hope people appreciate this. The fact that their are highly selective leaks coming out right now to counter the current round of saber rattling derp is, at once, both reassuring and scary.


Israel will contnue to biatch, but the reason it's reaching a head again is the election. When was the last time strikes against Iran were in the news so much?

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran.

So the neocons are pushing now because they see a contentious Republican primary with everyone diving to the right. Their warmongering plays well in this environment.

the administration's counter measures have two audiences/purposes: Voters to get them primed for what will be a general election issue, and Iran itself to try and get them to calm the fark down. It like telling your friend your going to beat up a kid at school just to impress him and the principal overhearing and preemptively suspending you. The republicans are going on and on about it and Iran is hearing this and getting paranoid.
 
2012-03-01 07:49:26 AM
Israel isn't doing shiat to Iran, because they cannot finish the job and it's pretty clear we will not be assisting them.
 
2012-03-01 07:52:09 AM
I would also add that Obama's expansion of drone strikes and strikes into Pakistan demonstrate that when the military objective is important enough, feasible and the repercussions manageable, he is not hesitant to use military force.

In the event that stopping Iran's nuclear activities meet the criteria above, I have no doubt Obama would use military force.
 
2012-03-01 07:53:44 AM
Someone told me in a thread a week or so ago that Israel has no say whatsoever on our foreign policy in the Middle East. He thought the suggestion was laughable.

That guy needs a punch in the face.
 
2012-03-01 07:56:17 AM
It's a delicate time for Schwartz to slam on the brakes of a potential war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit President Obama at the White House on Friday. He's unhappy with another U.S. general, Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for saying last week that bombing Iran was "not prudent."

These words....read together....in sequence....I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS.
 
2012-03-01 07:57:43 AM
The neocons never sleep.

/Eternal vigilance is the price for keeping our country safe from these Trotskyites.
 
2012-03-01 07:59:58 AM

PunchDrunkPanda: These words....read together....in sequence....I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS.


Yeah, I too find it hard to believe that we're actually standing up to Israel.
 
Displayed 50 of 208 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report