The points made by Halevi and Oren are very similar to that made by Philip Stephens in the Financial Times on Friday.

I am puzzled by your view. If you accept the Halevi and Oren's analysis which includes using Hamas and Hezbollah as their surrogates doesn't it call into question most of the rest of your policy prescriptions?

When have sanctions worked, except perhaps agaainst South Africa? If Israel or the West negotiates with Iran as Iran continues to work on their weapons how long before Israel cannot take out the nuclear program?

Is there an acceptable number of dead Israelis that you are willing to accept rather than alienate the American Left?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

And then there's Lieberman, the great Patriot. Only problem is that his patriotism is for Israel and not for the US.

Jan Knaus

"Your future is our future"

Fascinating, fascinating, fascinating. I thought you had to petition for statehood and pay federal taxes to get that kind of unconditional guarantee!

I'll bet Edwards isn't saying that in Iowa.

Do these idiots THINK about what they are saying and the kind of over the top commitments they are making?

We've got a population that's more than 95% not Jewish. What delusional fool in Israel would believe that our commitment is unconditional?

Iran Images not usually seen

http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html

IF:

We are absolutely committed to Israel, and therefore must assume Iran is an implacable enemy intent on using nukes, someday in the indefinite future, we are shackled to a heartbreaking and hopeless task.

That would be ensuring control of the Middle East, which has not gone well to date, and there is not much reason to suppose we or Israel can do better.

The wisdom of the conservative position is that governments can't really control things intelligently. While I disagree with that as an absolute position, especially within our borders, it has resonance in the wider world. Given that we know ourselves best, and other cultures to varying degree less, and considerably less when we get to the Middle East, what kind of hubris says we can take on this Herculean task?

Here I repeat my stance; make friends, not enemies. We and Israel can use more friends. Enemies we don't need. The USSR had a position that we were the losers and they would bury us, economically and militarily. Even so we talked and managed to get along, keeping our contests controlled and small.

Trying to control Afghanistan and Iraq is using us up. Add Iran and we're headed down the tubes. Simply whacking Iran is a prescription for more terrorism, which is supposedly an existential threat. While I would not call it that, it is terrible and to be avoided. Why invite it?

Why not simply announce a nuclear guarantee for Israel? If we assume Iran's leaders are nutso and intent on sending their citizens to Heaven prematurely we'd better get started on Armageddon. But I would assume they are not that different than us underneath. They want their country to prosper, which will reflect well on them and their legacy.

What Irans's leaders will want, at such time in the future if or when they develop nuclear weapons, is unknown now. But certainly it will be different than the current circumstances, and we just have to wait and see.

thanks so much

Hillary Clinton's anti-escalation stance is a joke. Once we bomb Iran (and we all know its going to happen), we have to maintain or increase the number of troops in Iraq.

Is there anyone who can get Clinton to render an opinion about the number of troops in Iraq if Iran is bombed? I just can hear the campaign rhetoric - first, she was for the war, then she was against it and now she's for it. Mrs. CiC, my ass.

Start telling people in this country that more and not less troops will be needed in Iraq if we bomb Iran and just see how much public support for bombing Iran there is.

I haven't formulated an opinion on all this except to say that talking about using force before negotiating seems utterly wrongheaded.

The West has been negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program for years now.  In this, the Bush Administration followed exactly the prescription laid down by the international community, letting the Europeans take the lead. 

It is a clarion call for war with Iran.

It is no such thing.  It is in fact quite a balanced piece, giving plenty of space to those who favor strong sanctions instead of war.  Here's the key passage, for those without TNR access:

Given these nightmarish scenarios, one would expect to find a mood of near-despair within the Israeli defense establishment. Yet senior officials believe that events are actually working in Israel's favor and that, one way or another, Iran's nuclear program can still be stopped. Partly, that is because Israel's assessments of Iran's intention to acquire nuclear weapons have finally been accepted not only by Washington but even by the Europeans. After years of isolation on the Iranian issue, Israelis are basking in a rare moment of international credibility. 

As a result, some in the defense establishment are convinced that the military option can still be forestalled, even at this late date, by aggressive economic sanctions, forcing the Iranian regime to choose between its nuclear program and domestic stability.

[snip]

But sanctions advocates do believe that, by formally placing Iran in the category of "threat to international peace," the United Nations has tacitly empowered the United States and its allies to pursue more aggressive sanctions that could trigger Iranian instability--such as the Bush administration's quiet efforts over the last year to force foreign banks out of Tehran. Combined with Iran's preexisting social and economic problems--massive hidden unemployment, widespread corruption, and growing drug addiction and prostitution--and hatred for the regime among students and the middle class, aggressive sanctions could, some Israelis believe, hasten regime change in Tehran by forcing the Iranian people to pay the price for their leaders' provocations. And, with regime change, of course, the threat posed by an Iranian bomb would ease: After all, the problem isn't the nuclearization of Iran but the nuclearization of this Iran.

The piece does not argue for war or sanctions or something else.  It argues that the problem must be taken seriously, which so many refuse to do, and that we are rapidly approaching a crisis point.

Edwards the fool doesn't know what the f he's talking about.

So who gave him (and lord knows how many other American politicians) a chopper ride into Lebanon's SOVEREIGN airspace during the summer war to show him Hezbollah's rockets? What rockets? Oh, maybe he means THESE rockets that Thomas Ricks noted to Howie Kurtz (and later much regreted opening his yap about):

"Tom Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other?

THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.

KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?

RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me.

KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.

RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/06/rs.01.html

It also must help to provide a boo-scary show-and-tell to ignorant and compromised American politicians. How very generous of the IDF and the Foreign Ministry Dept. of Hasbera to arrange such exciting and educational field trips.

What's interesting is that if the Israel Lobby in the USA had not been so arrogant, then a nuclear -armed Ahmedinejhad would currently be Saddam Hussein's problem --not ours.

And Iraq would be Ahmedinejhad's problem --not ours.

Ah, but everything has to be done solely from the viewpoint of Israel.

Sharon envisioned importing 1 million new Jewish immigrants to offset the Arab's greater birth rate. But Israel does not have the water to expand.

So it has to take the water out of the Turkish headwaters of the Euphrates. Which Saddam objects to so Saddam has to go.

But how to get the Americans to do the dying? Ah, have Kenneth Pollack, "Director of Research" for Israeli billionaire Haim Saban, tell America that Saddam is on the verge of acquiring nukes.

You would think Kenneth would go in hiding. But this morning I turn on Meet the Press and who do I see? Ta Da. Kenneth Pollack.

Presumably, in the words of John Edwards, "So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."

So tell me. Back in 2002, How did John Edwards vote re the attack on IRAQ?

I am usually reluctant to cite Robert Novak, but he had a very interesting column back in 2002 in the Chicago Sun Times.

The column described a private talk between Ariel Sharon and US Senators
in which Sharon urged that Saddam Hussein be removed.

The column is here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/% 20is_20020617/ai_n12466410

A few excerpts:
******************
"We need many more Jews to come to Israel, a million more Jews," Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee behind closed doors last week. Here was something entirely new even for well-informed senators, and their facial expressions conveyed surprise. Massive immigration to a country of 6 million signified no interest by Sharon in negotiating a settlement with the Palestinians.

Indeed, speaking off the record to mostly uncritical American politicians, the old soldier-statesman was even more blunt than he is in public. Sharon pointed to no Israeli-Palestinian deal for at least 10 years and talked of a hundred years' struggle with Arabs. Warning of Egyptian and Saudi duplicity, he informed the senators that removal of Saddam Hussein from Iraq would be the best way to deal with Palestinians."
*********
"Sharon claimed the ancient boundaries of the "Land of Israel" are guaranteed to the Jewish people by Holy Scripture. "The pope told me so," Sharon added. That sent freshman Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island home to search the Bible for justification. Sharon added he was prepared to compromise anyway, but was not specific, and he emphasized he never would compromise Israel's security."
*********
"Committing himself to a hundred years' war against Arabs, Sharon warned the senators not to trust his adversaries--including moderate states closely aligned with the United States. He expressed nothing but contempt for Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. The royal rulers of Saudi Arabia, he said, are liars. The only Arab leader he spoke of favorably was Jordan's King Abdullah. Sophisticated senators perceived Sharon pointing to the Kingdom of Jordan as the only Palestinian state, take it or leave it.

Voices of Arab caution should be disregarded, said the former Israeli general, when it comes to ousting Saddam. Sharon contended U.S. military action against Iraq, instead of exacerbating the Palestinian problem, would end it. No senator disputed this judgment.

A few Foreign Relations Committee members left this remarkable session deeply disturbed about the outlook for peace in the Middle East. They include Biden, Kerry, Chafee and Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. However, the current political climate precludes overt criticism of Israel or even so controversial a figure as Sharon."
*******

The Democrats race for AIPACish money, the Republicans race for the fundamentalists and their crazy, Israel-centered apocalyptic vision, and the rest of us lose no matter which of them wins. MJ, I don't even know why you bother. The whole topic is a waste of time.

J. McCutchen

Been There Done That

It has not helped that even as the administration is making its case against Iran, the perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, was opening just a few blocks away. Where There's Smoke.... Bush, IraN, IraQ (NyT)

Bush Is About to Attack Iran
Why Can't Americans See it?
by Paul Craig Roberts

I actually would like to have Israel safe.

The idea to weld the safety of Israel to an increasing unpopular war, and THEN to triple the scale of this war is so stupendously moronic that it actually requires some IQ.

On the other hand, this is dream come true to abicyclist (I do not mind 6 dollars for gallon of gas) and a classical history buff --- and empire overextends itself over the sands of Mesopotamia to be subsequently wacked by Persians.

For those who are into detailed military strategy, the following is a link to a "working paper" titled "Osirak Redux?" produced at MIT that helpfully gives the Israelis some scenarios they can pursue in their attack on Iran.

(I ran across it because of my interest in Incirlik and due to some very curious goings on there of late, followed some promising threads. Oren and Halevi (briefly) and this working paper discuss the northern route and IMO it's more a viable option than either source admits)

This is the html version of the file;
http://web.mit.edu/ssp/Publications/working_papers/wp_06-1.pdf.

From the intro:
.....
"More than twenty years later, some in Israel are again mulling the possibility of preventive action against an unfriendly state’s attempts to gain nuclear weapons, this time Iran. In a report given to Prime Minister Sharon in 2003, a group of Israeli and American scholars and analysts present a grand strategy that calls for Israel to develop and maintain a “Long Arm” capability for long-range precision strike. This report, known as Project Daniel, further argues that this “Long Arm” be used for preventive action against attempts by unfriendly states to gain weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

5 Theproject’s chair, Louis Rene Beres, reiterated this view in a recent op-ed, calling on Israe to maintain strong preventive capability against adversaries’ attempts to develop WMD even as it develops anti-ballistic missile systems.

6 As Iran’s nuclear program moves forward, the argument of the Project Daniel group may seem increasingly compelling to the government of Israel (as well as outside observers in the U.S. and elsewhere). Yet no unclassified net assessment of Israel’s
current capability to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities exists.

7 The capabilities of the IAF have grown dramatically in the past two decades, yet the Iranian facilities are a significantly more challenging target than Osirak. This paper will attempt to fill this gap in the existing literature by providing a rough net assessment of an Israeli strike on known Iranian nuclear facilities. It will do so by taking the strike on Osirak as a generic template for the strike and then
attempting to update the scenario to account for both the improved IAF capabilities and the much tougher Iranian defenses. "

Have fun.

10. Oren and Halevi are not afraid negotiations with Iran will fail. They are afraid that negotiations will succeed, and that by pursuing them the US will sccessfully advance the interests of the American people in a way which works contrary to the interests of Oren and Halevi.

Exactly! And this precisely parallels the Bush-Cheney attitude toward U.N. inspections in the pre-Iraq day: their efforts (including illicit surveillance and such) focused entirely on making sure the inspectors would be seen as failing.

I have a confession to make, because I'm finding myself posting on subjects more on emotion than logic. In general, I feel I have a neutral attitude, leaning in the friendly direction, to Israel. I certainly have respected colleagues there.

It just struck me that my emotional responses to Mr. Greenbaum has gotten my postings to be more hostile toward Israel. That isn't quite right. My responses make me more and more suspicious of Israeli exceptionalism, and more and more in favor of the US distancing itself.

Are these reactions, on my part, unique? Or might they be indicative of the reaction of an increasing number of American voters -- yes, and decisionmakers -- to what seem increasingly shrill demands for American blood and treasure?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It is apparently already in the last stages of preperation.

At 6PM CST today Minnesota Public Radio carried a news brief regarding the departure of ground crews and flight crews for places unknown attached to the B-1 Bombers based at Ellingworth AFB in South Dakota. The B-1's have already left. The crews left on Sunday.

You can hear it yourself by going to Minnesota Public Radio, and look on the News and Information service for the Commonwealth Club speech by William Perry about the Iraq Study Group, and if you listen to his speech the news bulletin immediately preceeds his speech.

B-1's gone -- it may be too late to think.

Several technical points are relevant. If B-1's have been committed to attack Iran, that attack is not going to be nuclear. Under arms limitation agreements with the Russians, B-1's are not nuclear delivery vehicles and are subject to inspection that they have not been so equipped.

AFAIK, the B-1 also is not certified to carry the large "bunker buster" bombs. It is more likely to be used for a mission requiring many smaller conventional bombs, perhaps precision guided. Might there be such a mission in Iraq, or could this be diversionary?

If there were to be an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, I'd think the likeliest platform would be the B-2 stealth bomber, which has a better chance of penetrating air defenses, and also is certified for B-61/B-83 nuclear weapons and for the GBU-34 conventional "bunker buster". The B-61-11 is the only US nuclear weapon with any ground penetrating capability; that might make it more survivable if it had to go through a hole opened by something else, with debris still flying.

The home base for the 509th Bomb Wing, the only unit flying combat-ready B-2's, is Whiteman AFB in Missouri. There may be some forward-deployed at Diego Garcia or Guam. A few aircraft are assigned to other bases, but for R&D.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Why have we done so little to control Musharraf, who implicitly threatens 1 BILLION Indians, and then we get bent out of shape about Iran not even threatening 6 million Israelis?  It is obvious that our stated policies are a farce.

I haven't formulated an opinion on all this except to say that talking about using force before negotiating seems utterly wrongheaded.

Wrongheaded does not begin to describe the idea of using force without exhausting every negotiating option.

I am a Jew. I have family in Isreal. My parents were adamant Zionists. I have a deep abiding fondness and connecton to Israel, a land I have visited. Israel, and the Israeli right wing which has unfortunately controlled Israeli politics far too much for the last decade are promoting diasastrous policies, both for Isreal, and the US. If you need proof, pick up a paper and read abut Iraq. Look at the results of the recent dust-up with Lebanon. Far from securing us, or Israel, attacking Iran will weaken and perhaps destroy us.

As Atrios says, "The stupid, it burns!"

One of the few useful things I've learned about this topic is that when people say, "I haven't formed an opinion on this," they really mean either "I have formed an opinion, but my ethics and common sense are balanced by my nationalistic allegiance to side X," or else, "I don't have the courage to say what I believe/think/feel." If you read real closely between the lines of the person's future comments, you can usually figure out which one it was.

I still wonder why anyone bothers. The whole topic is a pilotless plane, on its way to some crashlanding somewhere. We're just spectators, arguing over which patch of ground will be unlucky.

We have a pilot, Darth Vader is using his "mind" to direct the Chimp's hands.  Darth is drunk and the Chimp has no thumbs.

If you do not listen and respond to friends
and will never talk to adversaries,
you lock your country into military action.

When these actions are not producing your goals
and you spread new conflicts,
your actions are seditious to your country
and called war crimes by other countries.

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Mr. Rosenberg seems to be itching for fights about Israel and is looking for any excuse he can find. Now it’s an article in a newspaper, tomorrow it will be Olmert and after that it will be yet another excuse.

Most experts believe that Iran is developing the bomb. There is nothing the US or anybody else can do about it. You can damage the program, you can kill many Iranians, but you cannot demolish the program or stop it. The solution now, and in the past, is to make the Iranian less eager to use bomb or share it. If the Saudis can be respected company, what cannot the Iranians be?

There is nothing one can do about the past. You cannot unkidnap the American hostages. The question is: are you itching for a fight with Iran, e.g. Mr. Rosenberg, or are you trying to avoid some fringe terror group from dropping the bomb in Tel Aviv and New York?

Howard, all things considered, are 2000# JDAMS considered large bombs?

From the following article, the B-1B seems to be pretty versatile. From "Phoenix Risen: THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE BOEING B-1B":

"This sentiment was reinforced by the conflict in Afghanistan, where the B-IBs had another success. Although they flew only five percent of the missions, they dropped 40 percent of the weapons and 70 percent of the joint direct-attack munitions (JDAMs). The keys to the B-1B's triumph are its long range and loiter time-attributes that proved even more valuable during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The Bone in Iraq

Flying combat missions in Operations Southern Watch and Northern Watch, the USAF has confronted Iraq for more than a dozen years. An important element of this confrontation was the 405th Air Expeditionary Wing, commanded by then Col. James M. Kowalski. A composite Wing, the 405th operated 10 B-1Bs, 10 KC-135s and two to four E-3 AWACS aircraft. In a recent interview, Brig. Gen. Kowalski said, "I had few concerns about either the aircraft or my crews. I knew we had a solid weapon with the Joint Direct Attack Munitions combination of precision and punch; our defensive systems ranked among the best in the Air Force, and our speed and maneuverability inspired confidence. Most important, we had a secret weapon-the best munitions and maintenance folks in the world." His ground crews kept the B-1Bs at an extraordinary 80-percent-in-commission rate despite their flying eight 11-hour missions a day. The 10 Bones dropped 2,159 JDAMs-43 percent of the total used in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 22 percent of all the guided weapons used in the campaign. The 213 sorties flown by the 405th AEW B-1Bs were only one percent of the total flown by coalition forces, but they took out 10 percent of the targets.

Success on this scale was possible because the B-1B was able to change its mission planning from the traditional scripted approach to a far more flexible one that operated under special instructions (SPINS) that made the best use of its long loiter time. Crews could launch with the latest intelligence and communications information, be assigned specific targets in the air and then organize ad hoc aircraft force packages as required."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200504/ai_n13498079/print

I agree about the friendship thing but I am not sure how realistic it is or to what extent it could be taken advantage of.

But I've always thought a quick way to "perastroika" would be to invite such cold neighbors who could be realistically turned warm to be a member of NATO.

I thought it would have made sense to do this with the soviet union to end the cold war.

Just because a nation becomes a member of NATO doesn't mean you provide them with sensitive information or technology. It justt means they are under the protective and collaborative umbrella of NATO.

Ideally all nations would be members and the only enemy would be roque terrorist organizations (or aliens - although I don't believe in aliens, that is just to make a point.)

Of course I'm a dunce when it comes to politics. Although I'm not short on ideas on the other hand.

Lets not forget that supposedly anyways george bush is a fundamentalist christian. and let us assume the stereotype of fundamentalists to be people who believe NATO is evil and that a world government would be akin to the anti christ. I'm not sure why they think this since we have separation of church and state in the US. But I think it must be rooted in the same old root problem of "we are the chosen ones according to God and you are not."

At any rate, it isn't a coicindence I don't think that NATO isn't involved in the Iraq war. That only the Dubya Administration is plus the UK. "We don't need a permission slip from the united nations." And loo what this lack of permission slip has done for us.

If anyone more educated and with a higher IQ than I would like to expand on these thoughts that would probably be a good idea. : )

The 2000# JDAM is certainly a large blast-fragmentation bomb. It doesn't have much ground-penetrating capability, so the explosive payload is reduced and the case made much stronger to form the GBU-34/B. This is a JDAM with a BLU-116/B penetrating warhead.

Thinking about it, the B-1 can probably carry this even though my first reference didn't say so. GBU-34's, which are an interim weapon, have aerodynamics similar to the 2000#. IIRC, the penetrating bombs have about half the explosive of a regular bomb.

Larger bombs are dropped from transports. The largest (although an even larger one is supposed to be in development) GBU-43 MOAB. MOAB is officially Massive Ordnance Air Blast, but, in a nod to Saddam, it is generally called the Mother Of All Bomns.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

J. McCutchen

Guardian UK

Nuclear plans in chaos as Iran leader flounders -Boasts of a nuclear programme are just propaganda, say insiders, but the PR could be enough to provoke Israel into war

Actually, I should say that the current version of the game started in the early 1990s.

Actually, I seem to recall that a Jew named Sidney Reilly started the game back around 1904.

Then CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt continued the game in the 1950s when he overthrew the elected government of Mossadagh and installed the Shah on Iran's Peacock Throne.

In his memoir, Countercoup, Kermit indicates that the idea for the coup came
from the British Anglo-Iranian oil company -- nowdays know as BP. Of course, US oil companies got their cut and Iranians got --well, short rations and a visit with the Shah's SAVAK torturers if they complained.

We're not known as "The Great Satan" for nothing. That, our nuclear bombs, and Israel's nuclear bombs go some way to explaining why the Iranians don't want to sit down and sing Kumbaya.

Once a member of NATO, you no longer need to possess weapons of mass destruction, there is an economic benefit as well as a security benefit.

You just setup an economic alliance for NATO members. Lower barriers to trade (lower tarriffs, etc.)

So the roque nations who insist on possessing weapons of mass destruction - north korea and iran if iran chooses to make nukes, would not be allowed tot be members of NATO. With the exception that one nation - or perhaps a limited number based on who had weapons of mass destruction first - would be allowed to have nukes. (America.)

Any nuclear strike on any NATO member nation would result in a retaliatory strike by the US and/or approved NATO nuke member.

So now we've reduced the number of nukes, the number of countries with nukes, the likelihood of course of rogue organizations buying nukes through the black market.

And we have the economic incentive already in place to prevent nations from going rogue.

There would also be unofficial trade "preferences" for NATO members. Or all out trade sanctions against the rogue nations.

I just wonder why this sort of system wasn't put in place 40 years ago. I think we weren't thinking out of the box. We were in the box of the cold war.

And it seems to me the Bush Administration is without any doubt still in the cold war box.

The article I linked to identifies "the Bone" aircraft as responsible for the destruction of the Baghdad restuarant that Saddam & Sons had just left
by delivering two "hard target penetrating" GBU-31's.

? Would there be critical differences in the upgraded versions and how significent is the tweaking that determines the need for a new numerical designation?

Just an observation: once the balloon goes up and the US takes out Iran's oil export facilities, the US will have succeeded in eliminating both of the sources of Persian Gulf oil which excluded US oil companies -- Saddam's Iraq, and Iran. Everywhere in the gulf, either US oil companies will have a cut of the business, or the flow will be cut off.

Just an observation.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

This thread tangent has a, "besides THAT [the bullet caliber, weapon manufacturer, range, killing power] Mss. Lincoln, how was the play" feel to it. It seems like the color commentary to a sporting event (which I realize is an extremely crass way of expressing a deadly serious subject).

The real besides THAT in this case is more of THIS.

More times than not I read detailed and knowledgeable technical post like these and come away questioning myself why. Why do I read them? They often take me away from the thrust of the thread.

Like;

What is going on behind the scenes with the people who pull the trigger… and I don’t mean the pilots of the B1s. Why are these planes being deployed? And what does it mean relative to a further escalation?___________________________________________

“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."