|
Tempest_56 posted:The alternatives will have us bombing Iran within a month of taking office, full stop. This is not the time for whining about someone not being perfect. This is the beginning of campaign season and the primaries. This is exactly the time to whine about someone not being perfect, and support their opposition in an attempt to get them to potentially shift positions in the belief they need to do so to continue receiving popular support within their own party. Once we get to the general, then this bullshit might have some pull, but right now? No. None of the democratic candidates, to my knowledge, will be intending to bomb Iran a month into taking office.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
Shageletic posted:That's a pretty controversial article for a lot of reasons, reasons that again, are better elucidated in the Middle East thread. Could you point me to a page of that thread so I don't have to slog through the whole thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
The LBJ comparison actually strikes me as really good for Hillary Forceful political insiders whose legacy of support for strong populist social welfare policies is irrevocably tainted by their role in getting the country into unwinnable quagmire asymmetrical foreign policy disasters of wars (of course I'd vote for skeleton LBJ in a second if he were running and I were in a swing state, the same way I'd vote for Hillary in a second)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
My parents said exactly this awhile back when we were discussing how Trump is a terrible businessman and a prime example of how bad inequality has become. It took an hour of discussion before they acknowledged the fact that his repeated bankruptcy filings ruining thousands of lives everytime was indeed a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Could you point me to a page of that thread so I don't have to slog through the whole thing? I don't know what exact page it was but there's been discussion about it centering when it came out and a few days ago. I would just repost from here and have a couple of knowledgable people have the chance to respond to it (and ignore the dumb ones). Just quickly, its an article that focuses on abstract ideology when ISIS can be more easily framed as a regular criminal organization that has effectively cut itself off from all orthodox Muslim interpretations of Islam. EDIT: It's a big enough subject that it wouldn't really get well served here, not when we still don't know where Hillary is going to be dining next.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Could you point me to a page of that thread so I don't have to slog through the whole thing? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3390388&pagenumber=1935&perpage=40#post443998382 e: nm
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Throwback Tuesday: 8 years ago Joe Klien and Newsweek reported on the Bush administrations plans for Iran, the vice president's plans for Iran, and the comments of David Wurmser (advisor to VP Cheney, assistant to UN ambassador John Bolton) Bush looked at military options against Iran, but was convinced by the joint chiefs and secretary of defense Rice that engagement was a superior option. The Cheney administration then sought to do a "end-run" around the president, with plan, according to Wurmser, to "nudge Israel to launch a low-yield cruise missile strike against the Natanz nuclear reactor in Iran, thus 'hopefully' prompting a military reaction by Tehran against US forces in Iraq and the Gulf". [emphasis mine] When asked about the reports of this plan, the Bush administration told the New York Times "The Vice President is not necessarily responsible for every single thing that comes out of the mouth of every single member of his staff." Remember, both parties are the same and Obama is worse than Bush Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
got a link to stuff on that FC?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:"nudge Israel to launch a low-yield cruise missile strike against the Natanz nuclear reactor in Iran Wait what, we were trying to get Israel, a state that hasn't even admitted to having nuclear weapons, to preemptively nuke Iran? Even Bibi doesn't have that much of a war boner, this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. (And sadly, I believe it.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Bush looked at military options against Iran, but was convinced by the joint chiefs and secretary of defense Rice that engagement was a superior option. The Cheney administration then sought to do a "end-run" around the president, with plan, according to Wurmser, to "nudge Israel to launch a low-yield cruise missile strike against the Natanz nuclear reactor in Iran, thus 'hopefully' prompting a military reaction by Tehran against US forces in Iraq and the Gulf". [emphasis mine] I'm not sure how these would've destroyed the underground facilities, even with low yield warheads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
joeburz posted:got a link to stuff on that FC? The original links to the Time write up I quoted aren't working (though way back machine could probably fetch it if I weren't on my phone). But here is a salon article that quotes it heavily and preserves the embedded links of evidence http://www.salon.com/2007/09/19/iran_2/ Below the fold, the last 3rd is the chunk I was quoting from the May edition of Time
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:I'm not sure how these would've destroyed the underground facilities, even with low yield warheads. U.S. Infantry and supported ground forces was the planned way to get rid of those facilities
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Looking forward to absolutely nothing being done to the NRA whether out of apathy or fear of it being used as a rallying cry (and it would be). *me, gazing into my crystal ball* I see a small-scale local progressive organization that's doing the same thing...I see the Republicans crying out against their persecution...and the words...'BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME'....
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:I'm not sure how these would've destroyed the underground facilities, even with low yield warheads. Pretty sure that wasn't the point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Anyone who at any point voted for the Iraq War should be barred from being POTU. She became Secretary of State to boost her foreign policy record, but there's nothing indicative that she did any of a better job than Kerry did, nor come off as being nothing but more hawkish. Yeah man, purity tests are totally the way to go. Candidates aren't perfect, they won't match everything you want or meet everyone needs. Someone made a good point about getting them to shift, but in the end she's very clearly the best political operative on the stage for now and the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Boon posted:Candidates aren't perfect, they won't match everything you want or meet everyone needs. If some other candidate better matches your beliefs, should you not support them in the primary instead? Is it about "purity" if there's a candidate with similar stances on the issues but who was opposed to the war?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
After reading that Robert Gates book I believe anything that indicates Cheney tried crazy poo poo to start more wars. In spite of Gates trying to play it down Cheney comes across as convinced of the need for military action in every single possible setting. It's incredibly unsettling.Job Truniht posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3390388&pagenumber=1935&perpage=40#post443998382 Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If some other candidate better matches your beliefs, should you not support them in the primary instead? Is it about "purity" if there's a candidate with similar stances on the issues but who was opposed to the war? I guess that depends. If a candidate 95% matches my beliefs and has 30% chance of getting any of it done, I'm probably going to support the candidate with 70% of my beliefs but 55% chance of getting it done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Quote of the 7 years of "We need to cry out to a Holy God. This is coming faster than anyone can see. Barack Obama is intent, it is his number one goal, to ensure that Iran has a nuclear weapon. Why? Why would you put a nuclear weapons in the hands of madmen who are Islamic radicals? [...] We get to be living in the most exciting time in history. Rejoice. Jesus Christ is coming back. We, in our lifetimes potentially, could see Jesus Christ returning to Earth, the Rapture of the Church. These are wonderful times" - Michelle Bachmann Someone tell her the Rapture already happened and she was left behind
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Quote of the 7 years of Again, these fucksticks spend decades saying the Second Coming is almost here, you figure they'd be PRAISING Obama for the rapture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:"We need to cry out to a Holy God. This is coming faster than anyone can see. Barack Obama is intent, it is his number one goal, to ensure that Gays can marry. Why? Why would you put Gay Marriage in the hands of madmen who are Gay? [...] We get to be living in the most exciting time in history. Rejoice. Jesus Christ is coming back. We, in our lifetimes potentially, could see Jesus Christ returning to Earth, the Rapture of the Church. These are wonderful times" - Michelle Bachmann It works, and is what I thought the quote would originally be about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Remember, both parties are the same and Obama is worse than Bush He's not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:He's not wrong. Shut up, meg.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I don't know what exact page it was but there's been discussion about it centering when it came out and a few days ago. I would just repost from here and have a couple of knowledgable people have the chance to respond to it (and ignore the dumb ones). Just quickly, its an article that focuses on abstract ideology when ISIS can be more easily framed as a regular criminal organization that has effectively cut itself off from all orthodox Muslim interpretations of Islam. Why is there so much hand wringing about calling ISIS an extremist religious organization? Calling them a criminal organization seems intentionally designed to ignore their fundamental justification for their actions and the basis on which they recruit. I get that it creates an unfortunate side effect where more people can claim that all Muslims are terrorists or feeds into the whole clash of cultures bullshit but they're very clearly a batshit crazy religious group that has been widely denounced by the non crazies throughout the Middle East. I liked the article because it talked about the differences between them and Al-Qaeda, the nature of their recruitment/propaganda, and how exactly they want to operate, like an apocalypse cult based out of a particularly crazy branch of Islam.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
I call them a criminal organization due to their many criminal activities, including drug smuggling, forced prostitution, and ancient artifact pipeline into Europe and Asia. You seem to want to engage in a further conversation about this, so again, I suggest we take it to the Mideast thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Why is there so much hand wringing about calling ISIS an extremist religious organization? Calling them a criminal organization seems intentionally designed to ignore their fundamental justification for their actions and the basis on which they recruit. I get that it creates an unfortunate side effect where more people can claim that all Muslims are terrorists or feeds into the whole clash of cultures bullshit but they're very clearly a batshit crazy religious group that has been widely denounced by the non crazies throughout the Middle East. Much of the objections over the article focused on it's characterization of ISIS's supposed ideology as being an authentic version of Islam. If that wasn't the intent of the author then he certainly failed in conveying his message, particularly when he handwringed about political correctness being the driving force behind statements that ISIS does not represent true Islam in any way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Obama proposes 30-year agreement with China on nuclear power Light details so far, but if approved by congress it would allow the transfer of material, reactors, components and technology between us
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Obama proposes 30-year agreement with China on nuclear power
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Light details so far, but if approved by congress Well, it was a nice idea at least
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The hawks in Congress are gonna melt down over this, pun intended The grand irony being that this would be a leg up for us, because China has been doing a ton of R&D on thorium burners while we haven't
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:The grand irony being that this would be a leg up for us, because China has been doing a ton of R&D on thorium burners while we haven't That's not very grand, unless you mean like a grand piano crushing someone because that's some pretty crushing irony.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Much of the objections over the article focused on it's characterization of ISIS's supposed ideology as being an authentic version of Islam. If that wasn't the intent of the author then he certainly failed in conveying his message, particularly when he handwringed about political correctness being the driving force behind statements that ISIS does not represent true Islam in any way. Ahh ok. I think calling any branch of any faith authentic is a terrible idea, so I just ignored that whole bit. The hubris required to dub something authentic in a religious context is staggering so I ignore anyone talking about such things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:The grand irony being that this would be a leg up for us, because China has been doing a ton of R&D on thorium burners while we haven't
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:U.S. Infantry and supported ground forces was the planned way to get rid of those facilities Yes. U.S. forces that happen to be in the dead center of Iran after walking there from the border. The entire premise of the plan is retarded. To do anything with Iran period automatically implies that you can mobilize at least 250,000 people as a bare minimum. If you want to occupy it? A million. e: And I assume this plan would've happened right in the middle of the Iraq War, making those numbers rather nonconservative. Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Yes. U.S. forces that happen to be in the dead center of Iran after walking there from the border. The entire premise of the plan is retarded. To do anything with Iran period automatically implies that you can mobilize at least 250,000 people as a bare minimum. If you want to occupy it? A million. A draft would be good for unemployment numbers. Go hard enough and we could maybe even open a second russian front and really crank up the military industry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Yes. U.S. forces that happen to be in the dead center of Iran after walking there from the border. The entire premise of the plan is retarded. To do anything with Iran period automatically implies that you can mobilize at least 250,000 people as a bare minimum. If you want to occupy it? A million. Yes, the point would be to provoke a war that big 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
I like how quickly forget how mind bogglingly terrible the Bush presidency was, and how much worse it could have been if they had done everything they wanted
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Ahh ok. I think calling any branch of any faith authentic is a terrible idea, so I just ignored that whole bit. The hubris required to dub something authentic in a religious context is staggering so I ignore anyone talking about such things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Yes. U.S. forces that happen to be in the dead center of Iran after walking there from the border. The entire premise of the plan is retarded. To do anything with Iran period automatically implies that you can mobilize at least 250,000 people as a bare minimum. If you want to occupy it? A million. Yes. This was the plan. This is what they wanted to do. This was the goal, what I posted was how they wanted to get Bush to do this. If you are finding this incredulous, it's because you've forgotten how bad 2000-2008 was Stereotype posted:I like how quickly forget how mind bogglingly terrible the Bush presidency was, and how much worse it could have been if they had done everything they wanted Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
Stereotype posted:I like how quickly forget how mind bogglingly terrible the Bush presidency was, and how much worse it could have been if they had done everything they wanted Its hard for people to remember because while bush was disliked by nearly everyone, the absolute vehemence with which republicans have stirred their base into hating obama completely eclipses it
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:41
|
|