Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 51 To 60 Of 839 Comments
WHEN LIFE MOVES FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF THOUGHT
Why do you think I quit blogging? If you want readers you're in the same spot as a cable news outfit: you have a news hole to fill. A blog hole in this case. Which means you have to write something whether you want to or not, and whether you have anything new to say or not.
And what do you get for it? A bunch of assholes (like me) who don't pay you a dime but still snipe at you just the same. All the hassle of writing for a newspaper or magazine with a fraction of the reward.
The truth is there are only so many things to write about or comment on. So in the effort to fill that blog hole you go around and around on the same stuff until you can't stand the sound of your own voice. The more you labor to fill that blog hole the more your readers take you for granted. You're in a spiral of diminishing returns.
This is why longtime bloggers end up as nutty, obsessed and emotionally fragile as Dean Esmay or Andrew Sullivan.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.01.2010 @ 20:23
SShiel:
I love it when you try to defend Rick's positions because, unlike you, he's not an idiot. So when he sees you write something like:
“The facts of Obama’s terror policy speak for themselves. He has downgraded it as a priority in government, yes?” Can you refute this? Then do so.
He has to groan and die a little inside.
The burden of proof is on your end. Rick offered an assertion. You second it. And I sit here tapping my fingers waiting for a single fact to back it up.
So far you have rhetorical questions and a lame attempt at burden-shifting. In other words: nada.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 6.01.2010 @ 13:00
Sota:
A non-response. Do you have an actual response? One containg, say, a fact?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 6.01.2010 @ 12:57
I note that our host Rick has still not supplied a single one of the "facts" he said "speak for themselves."
Neither have any of the right-wing commenters above.
Imagine my surprise. It's almost as if none of you has the slightest idea what you're talking about. It's almost as if you're just making stuff up. Like you just really don't even give a damn about the truth but substitute partisan rage for reality. Yep, it's almost like that.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 5.01.2010 @ 20:11
Manning:
You live in a fantasy world. It's very hard to debate people who just invent a world.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 5.01.2010 @ 15:33
Manning:
I referenced the inflight refueling capacity. Has anyone mentioned to you that the Saudis have AWACS and their own fighter jets and that a 707 tanker is a big, fat, slow target?
The Israeli missiles are popguns against hardened targets. We're not talking 1967 and hitting aircraft on runways. We're talking targets buried under a lot of hardened concrete.
Once this first strike by Israel begins, Iran will retaliate on both Israel and the US wherever possible. Obama and Co. will be forced to respond in kind by his own people–us. He would have to show up in Congress and declare that war is upon us, and the Congress would agree.
WTF? Can you possibly make sense of that?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 4.01.2010 @ 22:59
I'm well aware of Israeli aircraft and their capabilities. You should be aware that unless they plan to deliver nuclear weapons they will need many missions to accomplish this. It's not a simple dash to Tehran and back. There may be dozens, maybe many dozens of targets. Targets must be hit and then overflown to judge effectiveness then hit again if necessary. Many of these are very hard targets and will require many strikes.
While they're busily dropping bombs they also have to suppress or evade Iranian missiles and planes. This isn't a one night affair, it's a days-long affair -- if they plan to do the job right.
If you add to that inherent difficulty level the need to suppress Jordanian and Saudi countermeasures you raise the bar higher still. If you add mid-air refueling over the Red Sea you add another level of difficulty. For example, you need to be sure your refueling planes aren't themselves targeted, which means more fighters expended for that purpose alone.
F-15 and 16's cannot all stay in the air all the time. Nor can their pilots. The planes need repair, re-arming, refueling. The pilots need sleep.
All of which is why any rational observer taking a look at it would agree with what I said: they will be operating at the very limits of their capacity.
I note you avoid addressing the possible damage to US interests. But then what does the Cheney clique care about US interests?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 4.01.2010 @ 16:14
First, you are correct that Israeli aircraft have to violate either Saudi or US controlled airspaqce to get at Iran. But our approval is not necessary for Israel to hit Iran. Why? Simple - if the Israeli’s violate Saudi airspace, what do the Sauds have to stop them? They have no Patriot missile systems so they would have to depend upon air-to-air fighter assets. They have F-15s but they are still flown by Saudis. If the Sauds oppose them, the Israelis will cut through them like a hot knife through warm butter - Bet on it!
You don't know what you're talking about. If the Israelis go after Iran they will be operating at the very limits of their capacity. If the Saudis start shooting at them the deal goes south in a big hurry. The Saudis don't have to be great pilots, all they have to do is start shooting and that will require the diversion of more Israeli resources to secure their attack. Not to mention alerting the Iranians. The question is whether the Saudis could ever bring themselves to covertly accept such an attack on Iran. Maybe they can.
It will require US permission for Israel to attack. It may be overt or covert, but we'd have to say yes. Because whether they go over Jordan and Saudi, or take the largely mythical route down the Red Sea and up the Gulf -- something that increases their difficulty level to an intolerable degree, I suspect -- they will be flying through US radar, over US allies, over US-occupies countries, or over US aircraft carriers, and it is asinine to pretend that anyone in the Muslim world will believe a US denial. At the very least -- the very least -- it would mean that we failed to warn a sovereign nation that it was being attacked with US-origin weapons from a US ally. All the spin in the world won't remove our name from that mission.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 4.01.2010 @ 14:46
The facts of Obama’s terror policy speak for themselves. He has downgraded it as a priority in government, yes?
No, in fact, he has not.
On the contrary, he's rushing men into Afghanistan, increasing our covert footprint there, and widening Predator strikes inside Pakistan. Which part of that is a downgrade? He's also defined it overtly as an AfPak conflict. And he's made it materially easier on "moderate" Arab governments with his outreach to Islam.
The facts clearly show that we are sending more resources into the battle against Al Qaeda. All we're sending less of is bullshit and empty threats.
Now, if you can, why don't you point out some area where Obama has downgraded our capabilities or reduced our effort? If you can't then you might want to consider not just repeating Mr. Cheney's lies as though they had some foundation in reality.
If the facts speak for themselves then no doubt you'll come up with a whole fistful of them.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 4.01.2010 @ 14:37
You lack even a ghost of a fact to back up your nonsense about Obama and terror. You might as well be a drug-free Limbaugh: fact-free partisan bluster.
You're also missing a geographical fact: Israel can't reach Iran without going through US-controlled airspace or Saudi-controlled airspace. In other words it is physically impossible for Israel to hit Iran without or approval. Which in Iranian/Hezbollah eyes makes it a US attack whether there's a Star of David on the wings or not. Nothing flies in the Persian Gulf without us knowing it. Sure as hell not the hundreds of missions the Israelis would be flying.
This could be disastrous for us. Economically, in terms of security, and in terms of our worldwide diplomacy. So be glad the Likudniks know we are not thrilled with them, and be glad we've got some distance and a president who has the capacity to say no. Would you really want Netanyahu empowered to unilaterally decide our fate?
Ever hear of mid-air refueling? Guess not. There is a go around for the Israelis. They'd have to overlfy a slice of Egyptian desert to get to the Red Sea, down to the Arabian Gulf around the peninsula and into the Persian Gulf.
The facts of Obama's terror policy speak for themselves. He has downgraded it as a priority in government, yes? Note that I make the point that this is a legitimate policy choice. My contention is that it will look stupid if the shit hits the fan this year as many experts expect.
As for my thoughts on Iran, click the category link on the left side panel marked "Iran" and start reading and scrolling. I have been against bombing them for 4 years and have listed the consequences of doing so numerous times - as I have also stated time and again that any attack from Israel would be seen in Iraq and Iran as an attack by us.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 4.01.2010 @ 13:37
