Shut up, yhou stupid fucking chimp!

[Captain_Carrot]

@tagos

If the man had the slightest shred of decency he’d demand Cheney’s resignation, appoint a safe hands VP and resign in absolute shame.

Well, you never know what public perception of the Scooter Libby trial might do. Oh, wait, I’m assuming that Shrubya has any ability to listen to the fucking public. Never mind.

To El Cid: doesn’t Israel have one of the best militaries in the world? I was certainly under that impression.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
Yeah. About that, you don’t seem very bright so I’ll put it in video game terms. Israel PWNT Iran AF.
[/quote]

Please express that in different terminology. I lost interest in video games sometime between Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man. In any case, we’re talking about a scenario where the U.S., not the Israeli, Air Force (and Navy air power) attack Iran. Now, we have the best air forces in all the world, I’m sure. That doesn’t mean they’re good enough to get the job done in the way you envision. Iraq was able to put up no serious air resistance whatever. Iran is very different. We may find ourselves helpless to “fork up their infrastructure” through air power alone without going nuclear – which, I hope you will agree, is not even to be thought of.

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
Imagine me poking you in the eyes like Moe from the 3 Stooges. BLOINK!
[/quote]

@Seymour Hersh

The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran’s ability to go nuclear. But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work. The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership. “Within the soul of Iran there is a struggle between secular nationalists and reformers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the fundamentalist Islamic movement,” the consultant told me. “The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West, the Iranian regime will collapse” —like the former Communist regimes in Romania, East Germany, and the Soviet Union. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz share that belief, he said.

“The idea that an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would produce a popular uprising is extremely illinformed,” said Flynt Leverett, a Middle East scholar who worked on the National Security Council in the Bush Administration. “You have to understand that the nuclear ambition in Iran is supported across the political spectrum, and Iranians will perceive attacks on these sites as attacks on their ambitions to be a major regional player and a modern nation that’s technologically sophisticated.” Leverett, who is now a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, at the Brookings Institution, warned that an American attack, if it takes place, “will produce an Iranian backlash against the United States and a rallying around the regime.”

<snip>

In his conversation with me, Smith emphasized that he was unaware of the military’s current plans for expanding covert action. But he said, “Congress has always worried that the Pentagon is going to get us involved in some military misadventure that nobody knows about.”

Under Rumsfeld’s new approach, I was told, U.S. military operatives would be permitted to pose abroad as corrupt foreign businessmen seeking to buy contraband items that could be used in nuclear-weapons systems. In some cases, according to the Pentagon advisers, local citizens could be recruited and asked to join up with guerrillas or terrorists. This could potentially involve organizing and carrying out combat operations, or even terrorist activities. Some operations will likely take place in nations in which there is an American diplomatic mission, with an Ambassador and a C.I.A. station chief, the Pentagon consultant said. The Ambassador and the station chief would not necessarily have a need to know, under the Pentagon’s current interpretation of its reporting requirement.

The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what it calls “action teams” in the target countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. “Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?” the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. “We founded them and we financed them,” he said. “The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it.” A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando capabilities, said, “We’re going to be riding with the bad boys.”

Note that the latter set of plans has nothing to do with starting a civil war. You seem to be confusing two entirely different sets of plans – the one unrealistic, the other indefensible and, in fact, criminal.

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
GRATUITOUS
[/quote]

Nothing in that article even mentions the chances of provoking a civil war in Iran.

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
NOSE-YANK
[/QUOTE]

And that link is an online announcement for a presentation given in February 2005, giving the presentation’s title but not otherwise describing its content.

Nothing in any of these provides hard figures – nor, indeed, any information at all – about assets the U.S. may have developed inside Iran for the purpose of rising against the government.

Please consider your eyes poked and your nose boinked. By yourself.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
One would think attacking the generator complex would be sufficient. I mean, doesn’t a BAD THING happen when a fission reactor runs out of electricity?
[/QUOTE]

I’m sure they’ve shielded and hardened the generators just as carefully as the reactor cores. And please remember that a nuclear reactor can provide its own electricity.

[BrainGlutton]

Also from the Hersh article:

There are many military and diplomatic experts who dispute the notion that military action, on whatever scale, is the right approach. Shahram Chubin, an Iranian scholar who is the director of research at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, told me, “It’s a fantasy to think that there’s a good American or Israeli military option in Iran.” He went on, “The Israeli view is that this is an international problem. ‘You do it,’ they say to the West. ‘Otherwise, our Air Force will take care of it.’ ” In 1981, the Israeli Air Force destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor, setting its nuclear program back several years. But the situation now is both more complex and more dangerous, Chubin said. The Osirak bombing “drove the Iranian nuclear-weapons program underground, to hardened, dispersed sites,” he said. “You can’t be sure after an attack that you’ll get away with it. The U.S. and Israel would not be certain whether all the sites had been hit, or how quickly they’d be rebuilt. Meanwhile, they’d be waiting for an Iranian counter-attack that could be military or terrorist or diplomatic. Iran has long-range missiles and ties to Hezbollah, which has drones—you can’t begin to think of what they’d do in response.”

@Captain Carrot

To El Cid: doesn’t Israel have one of the best militaries in the world? I was certainly under that impression.

Certainly, for a country its size. But none of Israel’s ground troops will ever get within sight of Iranian territory, and it is doubtful any of Israel’s airplanes could damage the target reactors (see above).

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
See, the best thing about the US Mideast and Asian foreign policy is its simple, brutal message: “If you screw with the US or our favored allies, we will fuck you up royally. Just look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. Do you want that to happen to you? Are you willing to risk your people on a pissing match with a global bully?”
[/quote]
Actually, the lesson is that America is violently insane, and will attack you no matter what you do or don’t do, unless you have nukes.

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
Ahmadinejad is in a vise. No matter how he shouts or wriggles or cries, his sac just gets flatter and flatter.
[/QUOTE]
The only “vise” he’s in is public opinion at home, and an attack by America is just what he needs and wants. America, being run by morons, will no doubt give him what he wants.

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
One would think attacking the generator complex would be sufficient. I mean, doesn’t a BAD THING happen when a fission reactor runs out of electricity?
[/QUOTE]
Even assuming the reactors in question don’t power themselves, which I doubt, they can simply shut them off.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Even assuming the reactors in question don’t power themselves, which I doubt, they can simply shut them off.
[/QUOTE]

Well, you can’t simply flip a switch, but yes, you can shove in more control rods to dampen the fission. As I understand it. I don’t know how long the process takes nowadays. Any nuclear engineers here?

[BrainGlutton]

@Seymour Hersh

“Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?” the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. “We founded them and we financed them,” he said.

Yes, I remember that crime. I also remember the death squads were supporting the established government. Subversion would require very different tactics.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
To El Cid: doesn’t Israel have one of the best militaries in the world? I was certainly under that impression.
[/QUOTE]
Best Air Force in the world.

@BrainGlutton

Note that the latter set of plans has nothing to do with starting a civil war. You seem to be confusing two entirely different sets of plans – the one unrealistic, the other indefensible and, in fact, criminal.

And you seem to be purposefully avoiding the fact that once their infrastructure is Iraq-ized, there will be nothing but civil war. Keep that up and I’ll start accusing you of being deceptive, not just stupid.

Nukes that produce juice are sitting ducks because they gas out their chutes. Very simple, very easy. And no, you couldn’t just flip a switch and turn 3 Mile off – that was the problem, if you recall.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
Best Air Force in the world.And you seem to be purposefully avoiding the fact that once their infrastructure is Iraq-ized, there will be nothing but civil war.
[/quote]
Why ? Blowing up their infrastructure strikes me as an excellent method of uniting Iran in hatred towards us, not disuniting them.

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
Nukes that produce juice are sitting ducks because they gas out their chutes. Very simple, very easy.
[/quote]
And very trivial; all you’d do is shut it down until they build new coolant towers; not exactly beyond Iran’s capabilities.

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
And no, you couldn’t just flip a switch and turn 3 Mile off – that was the problem, if you recall.
[/QUOTE]
Three Mile Island suffered from internal mechanical failures and several design flaws, not a loss of external power. Nor was it designed to withstand enemy attack; it’s a safe bet Iran’s is. Besides which, there are a variety of nuclear plant designs, some of which are far less likely to melt down than others.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
And you seem to be purposefully avoiding the fact that once their infrastructure is Iraq-ized, there will be nothing but civil war.
[/QUOTE]

1. Why?

2. How do the U.S. military forces have the power to cause that?

[Syntropy]

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
.And you seem to be purposefully avoiding the fact that once their infrastructure is Iraq-ized, there will be nothing but civil war. Keep that up and I’ll start accusing you of being deceptive, not just stupid.
[/QUOTE]

So, the idea is, we just keep destabilizing as many middle eastern countries as possible til it’s all one big free for all? And we’re the stupid ones for not seeing the brilliance of this plan. Do us all a favor. Put the Arnold Schwarzenegger movies away.

[scottkris]

[QUOTE=VCO3]
Jesus, I wake up to this arrogant fuck giving a press conference about Iran and I just can’t take it anymore. Fuck him, and fuck the pussy-ass corporate press who laugh along with him and lob him the soft questions. Fuck that smirk! Fuck the dry drunk bullshit!
[/QUOTE]

Did Obama (or Hillary) have a press conference today?

[scottkris]

[QUOTE=scottkris]
Did Obama (or Hillary) have a press conference today?
[/QUOTE]

Also…

Why did you ask Jesus? He doesn’t care for your silly questions. Even if he did, he would not answer you here.

Silly rabbit…
Tricks are for kids.

[Tuckerfan]

Apparently, some politicos have had their testicles finally descend.

Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That’s a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.

In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

scottkris, milk and cookies keep you awake? Or has your ass somehow learned to type? Because surely your fingers are smart enough to realize that mention of Obama in relation of a chimp comment could (I repeat “could”) be interpreted by some as a racist remark, and surely if you’re a Doper, you’re not a racist. Right?

Given, however, that you’ve chosen to be a dissenting voice in this thread, I presume that you’ve got information you can share on how Shrub’s planned “surge” of troops in Iraq will result in something other than more dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians? I, for one, am all ears, because I’ve heard nothing substantive about how this will work from this Administration other than “it has to.” Don’t think of me as some kind of bleeding heart liberal who can’t stand the thought of something being killed. I love my steak, and if you can conclusively prove (using military principles outlined by such greats as Sun Tzu, Clauswitz, Patton, von Mellathin, or any other military expert) how Shrub’s surge will work, I’ll be all for it.

Of course, I’m willing to bet that you won’t even bother to reply in a substantive measure to this post. Hell, I’ll be surprised if you do anything other than a driveby response, if you even bother to respond at all.

[scottkris]

[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Apparently, some politicos have had their testicles finally descend.

scottkris, milk and cookies keep you awake? Or has your ass somehow learned to type? Because surely your fingers are smart enough to realize that mention of Obama in relation of a chimp comment could (I repeat “could”) be interpreted by some as a racist remark, and surely if you’re a Doper, you’re not a racist. Right?[\QUOTE]

heh, heh

The first may have been the truth.
I really did not even read this thread when I posted, and “milk&cookies” is the only reason I even read your reply.

But YOUR reply to me shows what is on your mind.
Liberals want to find a reason to seperate people, even if they have to make up reasons…reminds me of the NBC reporter that called a black south African a “South African African-American”.

But, I digress…since your post makes no sense, and all I have to say is:
HUH???

[scottkris]

[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Apparently, some politicos have had their testicles finally descend.

scottkris, milk and cookies keep you awake? Or has your ass somehow learned to type? Because surely your fingers are smart enough to realize that mention of Obama in relation of a chimp comment could (I repeat “could”) be interpreted by some as a racist remark, and surely if you’re a Doper, you’re not a racist. Right?

Given, however, that you’ve chosen to be a dissenting voice in this thread, I presume that you’ve got information you can share on how Shrub’s planned “surge” of troops in Iraq will result in something other than more dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians? I, for one, am all ears, because I’ve heard nothing substantive about how this will work from this Administration other than “it has to.” Don’t think of me as some kind of bleeding heart liberal who can’t stand the thought of something being killed. I love my steak, and if you can conclusively prove (using military principles outlined by such greats as Sun Tzu, Clauswitz, Patton, von Mellathin, or any other military expert) how Shrub’s surge will work, I’ll be all for it.

Of course, I’m willing to bet that you won’t even bother to reply in a substantive measure to this post. Hell, I’ll be surprised if you do anything other than a driveby response, if you even bother to respond at all.
[/QUOTE]

:::SIGH:::
I’ll try this once more, as the SDMB is screwing up…

(of course this will pass, and not my original post) but…

Too Fucking bad.

[scottkris]

[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Of course, I’m willing to bet that you won’t even bother to reply in a substantive measure to this post. Hell, I’ll be surprised if you do anything other than a driveby response, if you even bother to respond at all.
[/QUOTE]

And how much do you want to bet? I can “driveby” until I get bored, or I can “driveby” until you do.

Is that the bet, and how much?

[scottkris]

[QUOTE=scottkris]
And how much do you want to bet? I can “driveby” until I get bored, or I can “driveby” until you do.

Is that the bet, and how much?
[/QUOTE]

Oh…
Wait…
This is a MB, and not a “chat” board.

I guess we both lost.

[scottkris]

[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Apparently, some politicos have had their testicles finally descend.

scottkris, milk and cookies keep you awake? Or has your ass somehow learned to type? Because surely your fingers are smart enough to realize that mention of Obama in relation of a chimp comment could (I repeat “could”) be interpreted by some as a racist remark, and surely if you’re a Doper, you’re not a racist. Right?

Of couse not…are you calling Bush a monkey?

QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Given, however, that you’ve chosen to be a dissenting voice in this thread, I presume that you’ve got information you can share on how Shrub’s planned “surge” of troops in Iraq will result in something other than more dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians? I, for one, am all ears, because I’ve heard nothing substantive about how this will work from this Administration other than “it has to.” Don’t think of me as some kind of bleeding heart liberal who can’t stand the thought of something being killed. I love my steak, and if you can conclusively prove (using military principles outlined by such greats as Sun Tzu, Clauswitz, Patton, von Mellathin, or any other military expert) how Shrub’s surge will work, I’ll be all for it.

Of course, I’m willing to bet that you won’t even bother to reply in a substantive measure to this post. Hell, I’ll be surprised if you do anything other than a driveby response, if you even bother to respond at all.

This last part has nothing to do with what I posted earlier…I am a Libertarian .

[tagos]

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
Best Air Force in the world.And you seem to be purposefully avoiding the fact that once their infrastructure is Iraq-ized, there will be nothing but civil war.
[/QUOTE]

The infrastructure that produces all that exported oil that keeps the world economy turning? That infrastructure?

That’s an idea so smart I’m forced to conclude you’re either Feith, Wolfwitz or Cheney in disguise.

Or maybe Baldrick.