CD @ 135

JG, I believe the 144,000 refers to “converted” Jews, not counting the raptured fundies. Hope somebody will correct me if I’m wrong…

I never heard that one before. You could be right, but it sounds rather legalistic for the New Testament. Especially Revelations, much of which reads like it was written after ingesting some particularly potent mushrooms.

Actually it’s 144,000 Adult VIRGIN Male Jewish CONVERTS!

Good luck finding THOSE!

My thinking was that Revelations was saying…”You really thing that there is going to be an Apocalypse? When PIGS FLY!”

But tactics aside, my question is, what next? Nobody seriously doubts that we could inflict enormous damage on Iran if we want to, but then what? Are we going to send in an army and occupy the country? What happens when thousands of disorganized, angry Iranian teenagers flood over the Iraqi border demanding vengeance? Are we going to mow them all down with automatic weapons? There really is no military objective here that I can see.

And I recalled we bombed the stuffing out of Cambodia… and North Vietnam. That didn’t change very much despite the fact that it was a hell of a lot smaller “border” along the Ho Chi Minh trail and across the DMZ. Irans got one of the longest borders in Asia and religiously allied peoples in the Gulf Emirates that outnumber the “citizens”. Japan and Germany had relatively few potential “sympathisers” behind the Allied lines when we bombed their cities during WW2.
Expect massive riots in every country from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan…and those who are opposed to the Ahmadjinidad regime will still be absolutely opposed to this attack. That will be felt in Europe and even in the US.

Cambodia got Pol Pot as a result of the bombing…while we increasingly lost the strategic component of the war.

The other day I was talking to a neighbor and she mentioned how great a job she thought GWB ws doing. I just couldn’t let it pass, so I clued her in to just a few of the most heinous misdeeds committed by her hero. Her next remark nearly knocked me flat. She said that maybe he was the anti-christ, but that was ok because that just meant that Armageddon is right around the corner and she’d be raptured. How in the world do you counter this sort of madness???

You tell them that in the Book of Daniel those that were mislead by the AntiChrist bring on Armageddon, but don’t get raptured, they suffer directly at the hands of Satan.

BigMitch @ 63

The ATlantic Monthly had a big article about B-2 bombers, which are stealth and huge. They render Iraq air defenses moot.

The military hardware freaks I know don’t think much of the B-2. The venerable B-52 holds more, goes further, faster and higher. One of them thinks the “stealth” business is nothing but boondoggle.

That aside, I can’t believe that Sadr won’t unleash his militias the moment something happens.

This whole thing makes no sense, and that’s taking willful stupidity into account. I am inclined to think this is a politically inspired feint. Most of you will probably say I’m crazy, but in this world, who can tell anymore?

I heard that the B-2 technicians had fits when one of them was shot down over Yugoslavia during the Kosovo conflict. Apparently there ARE techniques of detection…the cloaking isn’t perfect.

Loo Hoo. @ 108

Whoo Hoo! Leahy says no new AG until Gonzales probe is finished!

I hope Mr. Leahy will stick to that.

At the VERY LEAST Leahy should say no Hearings on the new Atty General until the WH is forthcoming on the subpoenas on the USAG firings…both on documents and the testimony of EX- AG Gonzalez!

As for an aerial campaign against Iran.

As I said above, Iran is a big country. A complicating factor in waging an aerial campaign is that you have many targets that you need to hit early. A first wave should target command and control, radars, air defenses, naval stations (some with ship killer missiles) around the Straits of Hormuz and probably the Shatt al Arab as well. Nuclear targets would also be part of this first wave. Some in Tehran but the really big ones are the uranium processing center at Natanz and a heavy water plant nearing completion at Arak. It is entirely possible that special forces might be used as part of an attack on these two facilities.

Other targets include airfields and their planes like the F-14s we sold them. Iranian naval vessels. They have many small speedboats that can be filled with explosives and used to attack shipping. Army bases would also be targeted, especially those associated with IRG and al Quds. Other nuclear related sites, dito.

Then you have infrastructure targets. Some of these would be hit as part of eliminating Iran’s command and control, such as switching centers and towers for telephonic and electronic communication. There would also be bridges and roads to hamper movement of Iranian troops. Finally and a big one, while most of Iran’s oil infrastructure would be left intact. Refineries would be a prime target as well.

Again I may have forgotten a few things but these are the basics.

And recall that the biggest fear in Kuwait was that the il fields might be set afire…and there was a major spill in the Gulf that halted shipping. Iran could do this with major effect…cutting off shipping in the Gulf for months.

Then there is the fact that millions of Shiites sit in the Southern Gulf emirates and Saudi Arabia. If the US attacks Iran it will destabilize the whole region. Iran could retaliate by fomenting the Shiite militias in Iraq to respond against the Americans…expect massive protests and civil unrest. There will be demands by SCIRI (Maliki’s main source of support) as well as Sadr that the US withdraw immediately from Iraq.
And Iran could also destabilize Afghanistan…which would further impact Pakistan. In addition, I wouldn’t expect Hezbollah to sit idly by while their religious ally was attacked.

Senators Reid and Durbin may be the idiots you say they are. Or perhaps they actually believe they will be able to craft a policy that can get, say, 60 votes in the Senate. Bush / Cheney played hardball all the time and got tactical victories and strategic failure. Aping this model isn’t a good idea.

The other day I was talking to a neighbor and she mentioned how great a job she thought GWB ws doing. I just couldn’t let it pass, so I clued her in to just a few of the most heinous misdeeds committed by her hero. Her next remark nearly knocked me flat. She said that maybe he was the anti-christ, but that was ok because that just meant that Armageddon is right around the corner and she’d be raptured. How in the world do you counter this sort of madness???

You don’t. I have a dear sister who is the same and there is no cure for terminal Dog.

Montag … I think, at times, that they believe their own insanity so in their minds a little bit of carpet bombing will take care of Iran then they’ll dust off their hands and look for the next.

Common folk don’t know what is going on or why. They “believe” because they have been told to.

They are unable to know what is going on and they are told to be afraid and they have seen an example of being attacked ( 9/11 ), so they are naturally afraid and follow orders.

Their inability to be in charge and demand that politicians serve us, rather than the other way around would be contemptible if they were able, but not interested. But, these people are by and large not able to govern themselves (Jefferson would be ashamed of them) and really should be pitied.

Everywhere in America the middle-class and poor have been battered, kicked, pushed around and generally disenfranchised. They are showing some signs of the wear and tear. Seeking Salvation in that situation makes sense.

We have to fight doubly hard for Democracy — once for yourself and once for the downtrodden of spirit.

… on stopping the war. All the Democrats have done is peed in their pants. No wonder they’ve been branded as weak.

I still think that their best strategy is to deny funding. No bill. No money. Tell Bush to STFU. Then maybe the public would see them as being strong. …

Neither wants to end the war and take the blame for ‘losing’. Of course, if Congress votes to cut off funding it would have to be bi-partisan to avoid partisan blame. Bush won’t stop it by himself.

How do you get Congressional Repubs to cut of funding? I say you threaten something near and dear to their hearts…no, not patriotism, their jobs. Threaten to defeat them, to crush them, in the upcoming elections and they *might* go along.

Of course, there is that nasty Constitutional question of who actually *is* in charge. Is it Congress who can pass a law, over-ride a veto if necessary, and force the president to uphold it, whatever his views. Or, there is the idea that the president has complete charge over foreign policy. Which is correct and in use?