Lets Get Political

[Gromnir]

is less 'bout acres than is 'bout population, though no doubt geography (as 'posed to raw acreage) plays a significant role. as silly as it sounds, we can't help but recall the original red dawn movie. in the movie, the US stopped the invading cubans and russians at the rockies.  likely got that right. apennine mountains were nightmarish in ww2. high country in vietnam were no better. a large % o' iran is mountainous.

even so...

win a war with iran, if you could somehow keep localized to iran, is one thing. keep peace and make victory anything other than another kinda loss will take many troops. 

nobody wanted to listen to honest estimates pre-iraq regarding projected peacekeeping numbers. in contemplating post-war iraq, there were a shared fantasy that the liberated people would police themselves after the real shooting war ended.

iran post-war scenario is far more bleak from a peacekeeping perspective than were iraq not least 'cause iran is more than 3x the population o' iraq during previous conflict. sure, popularity o' government in iran is low, but they hate americans even more. aren't gonna be able to sell liberation to the iranians when you had a hard time doing so in iraq. 

unfortunate, there is always a few ted cruz types hanging 'round. one suspects ted is a kindred spirit with john bolton.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

I'm sure Isis would love to get a new patch of land to call home (so many Shi'a Muslims to kill, don't even have to search for them), now that they have been evicted from Syria and Iraq, especially if this new territory was kindly sponsored by the US tax payers. I'm surprised that the Americans don't pass on a larger part of their military expenses to the Saudis than they currently do to be honest, since it's mostly their work they are doing for them.

[smjjames]

I don't think the Iranian people actually hate America all that much, at least not with the fervor that the Iranian government would have us think, Still, even if the Iranian people don't absolutely hate our guts now, they definetly will with a full scale invasion.

Anyways, I was also thinking of the same mention about the forces needed to peacekeep an area the size of Iran, which is what I was trying to get at with the mention of land area, but I couldn't remember where the source was exactly.

Perhaps I should mention it again, Trump said he thinks he needs no exit strategy. Whether that's because he thinks we won't actually fight Iran or whether he thinks winging it is best, I don't know, but starting a war with no end goal/endgame/exit strategy/end state is a sure way to do a forever war or one that is disastrous.

 

2 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I'm sure Isis would love to get a new patch of land to call home, now that they have been evicted from Syria and Iraq, especially if this new territory was kindly sponsored by the US tax payers. I'm surprised that the Americans don't pass on a larger part of their military expenses to the Saudis than they currently do to be honest, since it's mostly their work they are doing for them.

Except Iran is mostly Shia, and ISIS is a Sunni group.

[Gorth]

22 minutes ago, smjjames said:

Except Iran is mostly Shia, and ISIS is a Sunni group.

That didn't seem to be a major obstacle for them in Iraq which was what? 70% Shi'a (rough numbers)?

[Gfted1]

48 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I'm surprised that the Americans don't pass on a larger part of their military expenses to the Saudis than they currently do to be honest, since it's mostly their work they are doing for them.

Senate blocks arms sale.

Were trying, but you know, politics gonna politic.

[Gorth]

Considering Trump's dislike of a free press, I'm sure he was privately celebrating the murder of one, even if it wasn't a US journalist

 

[Gromnir]

49 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Senate blocks arms sale.

Were trying, but you know, politics gonna politic.

andrei, you are whining 'bout another group o' senators?

more significant,

Mueller to testify publicly on July 17 following a subpoena

am thinking many people will be disappointed. mueller specific noted he believes he cannot consider obstruction. am not believing mueller will say anything which risks trump's chance for a fair trial. as trump cannot be prosecuted at this time, mueller is not gonna be able to say much more than has already been said.

as to "collusion," which, once again, were Never considered by the special counsel, am thinking mueller testimony may prove enlightening IF democrats allow mueller to speak. as with comey being grilled by senators 'bout clinton emails, am predicting the Congressmen get distracted in their attempts to force mueller to declare trump actions criminal. democrats will lose a real opportunity to get useful information 'bout the degree o' russian-trump entanglement displayed in a public setting w/o barr or media editorializing. should also be gruesome public with details as the lengths the trump campaign went to avoid answering questions 'bout conspiracy... and the flat-out lies the campaign indulged to make the special counsel's job more difficult. mueller couldn't find legal sufficient conspiracy, but he stated such a conclusion were materially affected by trump organization lies and evasions. 

need Congressman questioning mueller to be smarter than were republicans when questioning comey if we are to get anything useful. worse odds than vegas.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Gromnir
punctuation

[smjjames]

He probably won't get a real friendly reception from the Republicans though, I fully expect some of the Republicans to attempt to make him look politically motivated and theres certainly attack lines with stuff like the FISA warrants, various conspiracy theories and whatever grievances that they have. Or at least they'll, at minimum, portray it as a waste of time, though some Republicans probably do have things they want to legitimately ask.

Also, is he doing BOTH committees on the same day? At least that's what it sounds like from the article. Those hearings tend to become 'most of the day' sort of things. edit3: Apparently so.

Edit: I checked and Eric Swalwell is on the Judicary committee, so, I guess we might expect an attempt to shine, though it won't likely be as much showboaty as it would in the Senate.

EDIT2: AND the Intelligence committee, he's gonna double dip, heh.

Edited June 26, 2019 by smjjames

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, smjjames said:

He probably won't get a real friendly reception from the Republicans though, I fully expect some of the Republicans to attempt to make him look politically motivated and theres certainly attack lines with stuff like the FISA warrants, various conspiracy theories and whatever grievances that they have. Or at least they'll, at minimum, portray it as a waste of time, though some Republicans probably do have things they want to legitimately ask.

 

fisa is complete immaterial to mueller testimony.  whether fisa were valid doesn't change what mueller discovered. if criminal charges were being pursued, then fisa validity would be meaningful as there is fruit o' the poisonous tree doctrine with which to contend. ain't relevant to Congressional investigations or even possible impeachment. am expecting mueller and others will point out quick how fisa is irrelevant as to Congressional determination o' conspiracy and obstruction.

and portray as a waste o' time has hinged on repeated mantra o' "No Collusion, No Obstruction." is gonna be difficult for republicans to tell mueller he found no collusion and no obstruction w/o looking silly for the cameras.

am actual most curious 'bout how mueller deals with the inevitable william barr questions. mueller might need work hard to keep from throwing barr under the bus. 

pretty much everybody on both committees is a lawyer, but is only a couple ex-prosecutors. perhaps ironic, but intelligence might have better lawyers than judiciary, albeit with fewer numbers. 

indulging morbid curiosity, am looking forward to hearing gaetz questions for mueller. the guy is a carnival barker in a button-down shirt.  kinda the exact opposite o' mueller. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps we did say we would update when the number passed 1000, but am admitting we didn't check for awhile.

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

1025 former fed prosecutors says but for trump being President, obstruction charges woulda' been pursued.

kinda funny as reason we checked the numbers is 'cause this eve we saw an interview with lindsey graham on fox.

"Graham said regardless of Mueller's testimony, it would be hard to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice.

""There's nobody on Earth who could bring an obstruction case based on these facts," he said."

+1000 former fed prosecutors disagree. 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Gromnir

[Skarpen]

5 hours ago, Gromnir said:

fair enough, but am suspicious you knew the gender o' his secretary before we made our comment. 

Of course I knew, I even used it in a sentence which triggered your "woke" comment, remember? Because both the Buffett quote and his secretary name are publicly known for years now.

[Zoraptor]

4 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Imo, Iran would go down as easy as Iraq. I mean, in a full blown shooting war. If we try "death by tomahawk" then it will be a total fail. Aside, we really need a new cruise missile. With more boom and better evasion. 

A full blown war vs Iran would make Iraq look like a stroll on a Miami beach. They've had decades to hone their asymmetric warfare skills and there will be no 'coalition of the willing' to unload duties onto, and that's without the population, geographical and equipment differences.

You won't get a cruise missile with better evasion and a larger payload; there's a limiting trade off to manoeuvrability/ sensors/ payload/ range which means that if you increase one you have to decrease the others. If you want cruise missiles that 'cannot' be shot down you need to go hypersonic (which as with everything has another load of trade offs).

3 hours ago, smjjames said:

I don't think the Iranian people actually hate America all that much, at least not with the fervor that the Iranian government would have us think, Still, even if the Iranian people don't absolutely hate our guts now, they definetly will with a full scale invasion.

Pretty much exactly that. There's only really one country that can trace a longer history as a country than Iran (Egypt) and that fosters a sense of identity most new countries have difficulty understanding, though really the US should- many people in the US may not like Trump, but if China invaded to get rid of him they won't be waving red flags along Pennsylvania Ave welcoming their liberators. It's very easy for Bolton and friends to try and say that the Ayatollahs aren't popular with the youth and that the US is popular- and it is even somewhat true, so far as it goes- but that goes straight out the window as soon as they get attacked.

Quote

Except Iran is mostly Shia, and ISIS is a Sunni group.

True, though Syria is about 70% sunni- but ISIS was also not solely an Iraqi/ Syrian group but also had a lot of expatriate jihadis.

The problem would be that in any significant fight Trump would want as many non US troops as possible, and given that the coalition of the willing for an attack on Iran would fit in a broom closet he'd have to take whatever the Saudis would offer- and the Saudis would offer rabid takfiri militia in the hope they'd permanently mess up one of their rivals while getting rid of a potential problem at home. Plus, Saudi conduct in Yemen does not exactly fill one with confidence of their good intentions.

[Skarpen]

54 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

Graham said regardless of Mueller's testimony, it would be hard to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice.

""There's nobody on Earth who could bring an obstruction case based on these facts," he said."

+1000 former fed prosecutors disagree. 

They sound like every retired militaryman who "would win every war" and retired policemen who "would solve every crime" etc. if only they were younger.

It would be funny to watch how quickly would they back off if someone would give them the case papers and say

- ok, bring this before the judge.

It's like Einstein said when he was asked about a group of scientists that wanted to disprove his theory:

- if the theory was wrong one guy would be sufficient.

The same here. You can get millions of people claiming this can be done and still be wrong. Because what you need is find one actual guy that will do it.

[smjjames]

China wants to lodge a protest for the country with the longest history as a nation. Though really, both China and Egypt have equally ancient histories. India also shares the same continuous history as a nation-state in one form or another.

Still, regionally, Egypt and Iran (Persia) are the ones by far with the longest histories as nations or nation-states. The Israel-Palestine region can pretty much trace it's nation-state history back to since early Jewish times. Turkey would probably be in fourth place, while it's got plenty of history to boot (at times being part of Persia), the turkish nation-state is relatively young, the Seijuk Turks started migrating into the region in the 11th century.

re coalition of the willing (or what meagre support Trump could get): Israel would definetly join, though their support would likely be limited to whatever air assets they can provide along with intel and special forces. Saudi Arabia would probably 'coax' it's regional allies into joining. Other than that, yeah, we won't be expecting much else to join, not likely NATO support for sure. I suppose Britain might join if they decide they can multitask with Brexit going on, but, you know, Brexit.

Edited June 26, 2019 by smjjames

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

They sound like every retired militaryman who "would win every war" and retired policemen who "would solve every crime" etc. if only they were younger.

 

that doesn't sound like most o' the retired military personnel who frequent this board, or most o' the military folks in our family. oh sure, is probable a couple would-be hannibals on these boards, but "every?" hmmm. sharp must know a different breed.

am admitting we don't know many retired cops. know lots o' current cops and have only ever met one guy who seemed to think o' himself as soopercop. hard to imagine that when they retire, they sudden will become sages o' all things police procedure. most cops we know lament that so many crimes is destined to go unsolved and unpunished.

rely on experts is not great logic, but is reasonable. get a thousand former prosecutors to commit to any position is noteworthy.  scotch v. bourbon? maybe. might be only other thing you could find a thousand lawyers care 'bout enough to commit to an answer. the thing is, the fed prosecution success rate is extreme high. is something approaching 90%... or better. these folks is used to winning and that is in part 'cause they know how to pick their horses. 

and am not sure what "case papers" you is talking 'bout. am pretty sure you don't know what you is talking 'bout. volume 2 o' the mueller report is 182 pages and volume 2 is largely unredacted. fraking dream scenario for any prosecutor to have a bob mueller team o' all-stars do all the grunt work so they can slap together a formal charging document?

to not give any special weight to the opinion o' +1000 prosecutors strikes us as bordering on obtuse. +1000, the number, don't make 'em right, and we would caution against blind acceptance in supplanting your ignorance with their numbers. nevertheless, to be dismissive o' such a number o' former prosecutors is even more perplexing than would be blind faith.

so, where you stand on holocaust denial?

human impact on climate is a myth?

85 bears as the all-time best nfl defense?

HA! Good Fun!

ps in our experience, the consensus 'mongst litigators appears to be bourbon. am not a drinker our self, so no vote.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Gromnir

[ShadySands]

I also don't know any vets like that but then again I also don't hang around many vets.. and even less police.

Anyways, bourbon over scotch even though I do enjoy that too and I might have to go with the 91 Eagles over the Bears and the Steelers.

The others should be pretty obvious

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

that doesn't sound like most o' the retired military personnel who frequent this board, or most o' the military folks in our family. oh sure, is probable a couple would-be hannibals on these boards, but "every?" hmmm. sharp must know a different breed.

Every who... doesn't mean every. 

For example: every member who writes in third person is ovnoxious doesn't mean every member is obnoxious only the ones that writes in third person.

Case papers as the name suggests are papers for the case. You know the pieces of cellulose with ink on them in the shape of letters. Seems pretty simple to me. Oh well.

Of course experts are great thing to rely on in most cases. Like how to produce scotch or bourbon or if the bumblebee is physically able to fly. Which the latter was by experts deemed impossible regardless of the clear evidence that they do fly.

But in this case the question is is there a prosecutor who would go to court with a particular case. For me it's reverse bumblebee argument where experts claim someone like this exist but in reality there is no such person at least till now. 

[Chilloutman]

Well, look I am not conspiracy theorist (music does not help) but this seems to be at least scatchy, also see seems like this was removed from other platforms owned by Google.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/re9Xp6cdkro/

 

Its about google AI. If someone knows its fake or hoax please tell me

Edited June 26, 2019 by Chilloutman

[Mamoulian War]

@Chilloutman  More about it in a video which tries to be as objective as possible. Man needs to really dig deep in this one to find relevant and true information.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Mamoulian War

[Skarpen]

There is more about this on Project Veritas website. Seems like google wants to meddle in US election. Disgraceful.

[Pidesco]

The controversy seems to be that that lady from google said she doesn't think google's platforms should be used to spread racist content? Or to finance creators of said content.

[Mamoulian War]

@Pidesco if you can, watch the Upper Echelon video, I’ve linked. He speaks about controversies on both sides. Google and the guy behind Project Veritas. I think both sides are trying it to skew it in their favour. On remark of racism, some Google people are openly pointing at one Orthodox Jew and calling him nazi. So the *ism card in this case is not entirely backed with stoneproofed arguments.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Mamoulian War

[213374U]

2 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Of course experts are great thing to rely on in most cases. Like how to produce scotch or bourbon or if the bumblebee is physically able to fly. Which the latter was by experts deemed impossible regardless of the clear evidence that they do fly.

But in this case the question is is there a prosecutor who would go to court with a particular case. For me it's reverse bumblebee argument where experts claim someone like this exist but in reality there is no such person at least till now. 

The bumblebee thing is actually the other way around -- just one guy (an entomologist at that, rather than an engineer or biophysicist) claiming it was "impossible" rather than any kind of broad scientific consensus. You know, similar to how Einstein rejected the probabilistic aspect of quantum mechanics, despite having had a leading hand in laying the foundations for the theory himself, and against the accuracy of its predictions.

When one is completely clueless about complex topics, it's advisable to keep an open mind rather than immediately embracing the opinion of the one expert, even against the consensus of other specialists in the field or, well... readily observable facts.

[Gfted1]

10 hours ago, Gorth said:

Considering Trump's dislike of a free press, I'm sure he was privately celebrating the murder of one, even if it wasn't a US journalist

 

We kill 100's of people a day. I cant find the energy to qq over some random journalist. But its the theater of politics so the opposing party has to appear aghast, AGHAST! Besides, journalist reside on the same contempt level to me as all the other internet bigmouths so Im not the best one to ask.

[Pidesco]

1 hour ago, Mamoulian War said:

@Pidesco if you can, watch the Upper Echelon video, I’ve linked. He speaks about controversies on both sides. Google and the guy behind Project Veritas. I think both sides are trying it to skew it in their favour. On remark of racism, some Google people are openly pointing at one Orthodox Jew and calling him nazi. So the *ism card in this case is not entirely backed with stoneproofed arguments.

Are you talking about Shapiro, dog whistler extraordinaire?

[Guard Dog]

Sorry I've been away for a while. I was in Oregon helping some political prisoners escape tyranny! 

 

If you don't follow politics you might not know the name Duncan Hunter. He became prominent during the early 2000's and was a tea party darling IIRC. He was supposed to be a future President, conservative champion, etc. Well, baby look at you now! https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/25/politics/duncan-hunter-campaign/index.html

Do you know what elections really are? It's where we find the most dishonest, underhanded, and selfish people our society can produce and then elevate to positions where those qualities REALLY help them cash in. We beg them to waste our hard earned money, take our freedom a bit at a a time, harass us with petty laws (which never seem to apply to them) and pick needless and pointless fights in foreign countries that we get to go fight in.  And, to add insult to injury, when they actually do all these things they demand our applause... and get it. One of my favorite founders was Thomas Paine. He told us that even at it's best government is but a necessary evil.  At it' worst an intolerable on. I am continually amazed at how much we will tolerate.