The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 7

scaeagles · 04-12-2006, 08:59 AM

I could post a link to John Kerry discussing a deep cover op by name during some senate hearings. That didn't result in anything.

I find myself being less and less of a Bush supporter (I have 4 big things that are a must, and right now he is failing mightily in two and the another of the four he is not doing well enough....for those that know me, take a guess as to what I'm referring to) but this whole Plame thing is ridiculous to me. I could discuss reasons as to why, but it's all been hashed out many times before here and it would lead to a grand debate of unbending and unchangable opinions on this issue.

scaeagles · 04-12-2006, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

If we attack Iran next, will there be a draft?

Interesting question. I don't see an invasion, frankly. I see surgical strikes with lots of support from our allies, though not the UN, Russia, or China.

Perhaps special forces will end up in the country covertly assisting with those strikes.

Ghoulish Delight · 04-12-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Interesting question. I don't see an invasion, frankly. I see surgical strikes with lots of support from our allies, though not the UN, Russia, or China.

Hmm, isn't that what Iraq was supposed to be?

Gemini Cricket · 04-12-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Interesting question...

I read this the other day:

Quote:

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

Source
What do you make of it? I'm not an avid New Yorker reader. Someone forwarded this to me.

scaeagles · 04-12-2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Hmm, isn't that what Iraq was supposed to be?

Ummm....no.....the goal was to oust Saddam. Here the goal is to stop development of a nuclear program.

GC - I would not be surprised at all if there are currently US special forces inside Iran doing such things. I would suspect high tech classified surveillance planes and drones are also operating with regularity.

Ghoulish Delight · 04-12-2006, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Ummm....no.....the goal was to oust Saddam. Here the goal is to stop development of a nuclear program.

Yes, but they planned it as a quick in-n-out with minimal troops, and heavy reliance on surgical air strikes. The absolute worst thing that could happen is to repeat the same mistake of arrogantly assuming we're just going to breeze in and get the job done sans-complication and have zero backup plan for if and when things go wrong.

Alex · 04-12-2006, 09:48 AM

It isn't the same thing. The goal in Iraq is to topple and rebuild a government and it was mistakenly attempted with inadequate post topple planning.

The goal in Iran would be to destroy an asset, not topple the government. We don't want to replace the Iranian government (we wouldn't mind seeing it changed).

As for the story that the White House won't rule out the nuke option, I would ask this: when has the White House (of any president) explicitly ruled out using nuclear weapons? This story comes up every once in a while. "Ohmygawd!!!!!1 The president won't rule out nukes in situation X! What a homicidal maniac he must be."

The president asks for plans on how we might go about destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. If the reports of how they are hardened are accurate, the only way it could be done simply with bombs is nuclear. To say so is not to say that will happen. Frank Kaplan at Slate (a rabid anti-Bush man) is reasonable on his evaluation of this story.

By the way, just to get this out of the way now in case it does happen. I do not support military action to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. I believe that development of nuclear weapons (as well as chemical and biological and mechanical) is a right of a sovereign nation regardless of U.N. treaties otherwise. The only difference with Iraq is that they had signed away their rights to do so when they invaded another sovereign country and, particularly, when they lost the ensuing war.

So if it happens, I will not support it (or the troops who do it).

Gemini Cricket · 04-12-2006, 09:55 AM

In Hawai'i, I would see these old men on the beaches. They'd stick a fishing pole in the sand and fish all day. There'd be a beer filled cooler at their feet. You look at these guys and they seem to be having the times of their lives. You look at them and figure out that their ages put them right in their teens or 20's during WWII and the boming of Pearl Harbor. How stressful for them then, how not so much now. I've decided I want to be one of those old men one day. Weathered but zen.

JWBear · 04-12-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I could post a link to John Kerry discussing a deep cover op by name during some senate hearings. That didn't result in anything.

Sources please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

...but this whole Plame thing is ridiculous to me...

So, outing a CIA operative, destroying her operation, endangering the people she was working with, and lessing our intelligence effectiveness - all in the name of petty political revenge - is ok with you? Alrighty then.

BTW, do you know what she was doing (in part)? Keeping watch on Iran's nuclear capabilities. Kinda ironic, huh?

scaeagles · 04-12-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

If the reports of how they are hardened are accurate, the only way it could be done simply with bombs is nuclear.

Ever hear of "rods from God"? It is a rumored kinetic energy space weapon specifically developed as bunker busters to replace any need for "tactical nukes".

The "rods from God" are gigantic titanium rods (edited to add: they are actually tungsten. I misspoke. Not that I really know the difference between the two.) that are propelled from a satillite at tremendous velocity with some sort of precision guidance system. They are non explosive, but the kinetic energy is so extreme that they are able to penetrate very deep into the ground and have a meteor like destructive force.

Should these actually exist, I would suspect that a few rods could take care of it.

04-12-2006, 08:59 AM	#61
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I could post a link to John Kerry discussing a deep cover op by name during some senate hearings. That didn't result in anything. I find myself being less and less of a Bush supporter (I have 4 big things that are a must, and right now he is failing mightily in two and the another of the four he is not doing well enough....for those that know me, take a guess as to what I'm referring to) but this whole Plame thing is ridiculous to me. I could discuss reasons as to why, but it's all been hashed out many times before here and it would lead to a grand debate of unbending and unchangable opinions on this issue.
	Submit to Quotes

04-12-2006, 09:48 AM	#67
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	It isn't the same thing. The goal in Iraq is to topple and rebuild a government and it was mistakenly attempted with inadequate post topple planning. The goal in Iran would be to destroy an asset, not topple the government. We don't want to replace the Iranian government (we wouldn't mind seeing it changed). As for the story that the White House won't rule out the nuke option, I would ask this: when has the White House (of any president) explicitly ruled out using nuclear weapons? This story comes up every once in a while. "Ohmygawd!!!!!1 The president won't rule out nukes in situation X! What a homicidal maniac he must be." The president asks for plans on how we might go about destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. If the reports of how they are hardened are accurate, the only way it could be done simply with bombs is nuclear. To say so is not to say that will happen. Frank Kaplan at Slate (a rabid anti-Bush man) is reasonable on his evaluation of this story. By the way, just to get this out of the way now in case it does happen. I do not support military action to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. I believe that development of nuclear weapons (as well as chemical and biological and mechanical) is a right of a sovereign nation regardless of U.N. treaties otherwise. The only difference with Iraq is that they had signed away their rights to do so when they invaded another sovereign country and, particularly, when they lost the ensuing war. So if it happens, I will not support it (or the troops who do it).
	Submit to Quotes

04-12-2006, 09:55 AM	#68
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	In Hawai'i, I would see these old men on the beaches. They'd stick a fishing pole in the sand and fish all day. There'd be a beer filled cooler at their feet. You look at these guys and they seem to be having the times of their lives. You look at them and figure out that their ages put them right in their teens or 20's during WWII and the boming of Pearl Harbor. How stressful for them then, how not so much now. I've decided I want to be one of those old men one day. Weathered but zen.
	Submit to Quotes