Actually, in the O'Henry story, "The Ransom of Red Chief" the kid proves to be so awful, the kidnappers pay the parents to take him back. So, if it was a ransom Obama Red Chief-ed the Iranians. I suspect the Iranians also wanted interest on their money, which in the 1979 -- 1985 era, was close to 20 percent.
The assumption that the Catholic vote is a swing vote doesn’t conform to the presidential election returns. In general, the more Catholic the state, the more Democratic. The region with the highest percentage of Catholics is New England and the Middle Atlantic states, none of which has gone Republican in a general election since 1988 (except Bush taking NH in 2000). Of the states with the largest shares of Catholics, only Texas is consistently Republican and only Florida and Ohio are true swing states. Michigan, Illinois, California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, New Mexico and Oregon have gone Democratic in every election.
What reason is there to believe a President Trump would pay any attention to a Supreme Court decision going against him. Or any court, for that matter?
Another problem with a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran is that there is no reason the Iranians would believe that they were acting without prior approval from Washington, but instead acting as our cats-paw. That would leave our Navy in the Persian Gulf in an extremely dangerous position. The Iranians would retaliate for such an attack by firing on American warships in the Gulf and Arabian sea. Thus an Israeli attack without prior notice to Washington, as Bibi has threatened repeatedly, could produce heavy American naval casualties from a rain of antiship missiles.
When the Iranian air force began running out of the Phoenix missiles for the F-14 Tomcats the U.S. had sold them in palmier days, the IDF stepped in. Israeli technicians showed the Iranians how to convert Hawk ground-based antiaircraft missiles into an air to air missile and mount them on the F-14s. The Hawk, by the way, was the first American weapon system sold to Israel directly, during the Kennedy administration. Ike wouldn't agree to any sales, which is why the Israelis used French planes up to 1967 war.
This assistance helped the Iranians to maintain almost complete air superiority over the Iraqi air force. The F-14s were overwhelmingly effective against (mostly) Soviet-built Iraqi planes, downing between 120 and 160 Iraqi planes (depending on who is counting) in air combat for the loss only one (disputed, some reports claim it was hit by ground fire). By contrast, mostly for want of opposition, in three decades of US Navy service, the F-14s downed only five enemy planes, one of which was helicopter. Iran is still believed to have between 10 and 20 F-14s in service.
Generally some truth in this, although Philip Seymour Hoffman's last role was a German counterintelligence agent in "A Most Wanted Man." And we currently have a British "Spider-Man", "Superman," Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King.
I wonder if "Lawrence of Arabia" could even get made today. After all, the audience is expected to identify with Arab heroes and the Arab cause. A cause that Americans, in form of the Lowell Thomas pastiche (Arthur Kennedy), support. Conversely, if you saw ""Lawrence" as a kid, you probably have soft spot in your heart for the Arabs that endures despite all the subsequent real and cinematic villainy.
There has been much counting of airstrikes without a definition of what an "airstrike" is. Perhaps you, or one of your readers can enlighten me. Is a "strike" one sortie by one plane? Or an attack on a target by multiple aircraft? A "strike" on Germany in 1944 would have consisted of 900 or so heavy bombers, plus 700 fighter escorts. Obviously, nothing like that goes on today. But it would be nice to have some idea of what the term means and how many aircraft are actually attacking. One would think that four or five planes a "strike" would be likely, and that counting planes would be a better measure of the effort than counting strikes or missions.
You might also have mentioned that Giuliani's father dodged military service in a war where one enemy was Italy. You might think that raises the question of which side he was on, especially since all his uncles also dodged WWII military service, but I couldn't possibly comment. Also, in "normal" American families in the postwar era, kids grew up among veteran dads and uncles. So it would appear that Giuliani is the outlier, patriotic upbringing-wise. A kid who grew up in Brooklyn rooting for the Yankees shouldn't throw stones.
Even people familiar with planes often don't realize that in the three decades of US Navy service, the Grumman F-14s shot down a total five enemy aircraft. Mostly for want of foes. The Iranian Air Force F-14s, sold to the Shah, on the other hand, absolutely mauled the Iraqi air force in the Iran-Iraq war, downing over 150 Iraqi planes, for the loss of one F-14 in air to air combat. The F-14 ace of aces is Jalil Zandi, credited with downing 11 Iraqi planes, which would have been in impressive total in WWII when air forces fielded thousands of planes, but is jaw-dropping in the modern era when air forces more often muster planes by the score.
Could we have a better definition of "strike"? Is that one plane or one attack, which could be by multiple planes, In WWII Americans P-47 and British Typhoon Fighter bombers formed up in what was called "cab rank" and attacked targets on call. One strike might involve all or part of an 18-plane (roughly) squadron. Do the 15 strikes on ISIL positions mean 15 aircraft or 15 attacks by multiple planes on a given target, such as an artillery battery?
Then Nato would be violating the same agreements Putin violated. Also, there is little chance that Nato would add Ukraine. The idea was bruited before and shot down.
Putin is paying a heavy price to take something he already had. Crimea has four major Russian bases and the Russian presence was not under any kind of challenge. By annexing the Crimea he has antagonized most of the world. The American interest in the area is minimal. Until the destroyer Kidd arrived for an exercise a few weeks ago, there were no American warships in the Black Sea. Ukraine has a military of about 90,000, which should be able to make a stand if Russia moves against them (and more importantly, turn the pipeline carrying Russian gas to customers in Europe into twisted metal). The numbers of Russian troops being bruited about are 20,000 on the Ukraine border. By way of comparison, that's about two-third the size of the New York City Police Department.
Everyone seems to be forgetting about the U.S. Navy. Iranian retaliation against the U.S., on their assumption that Israel wss simply acting as an American cats-paw, would most likely and most quickly be directed against American warships in the Persian Gulf. The Iranians have said they would not dribble away their resources in penny packets, as had been the Arab practice, but would go all out. This would mean hundreds of cruise missiles fired at American warships within minutes of the outbreak of hostilities. With such a large barrage, some would almost certainly get through. It is safe to assume that American warships in the narrow waters of the Gulf are under constant observation, so such a counterstrike is entirely feasible for Iran.
Because of this danger, the U.S. govenrment would almost certainly have to be advised in advance of an Israeli attack. Probably some days in advance so that major units like aircraft carriers, could be moved away from immediate danger. Unless, of course, the Israelis prefer that the Americans take naval casualties to ensure a U.S. commitment to war with Iran. That one is a little hard to believe, in part because in a lengthy war with Iran, the U.S. Navy would have to play a major role.
Actually, in the O'Henry story, "The Ransom of Red Chief" the kid proves to be so awful, the kidnappers pay the parents to take him back. So, if it was a ransom Obama Red Chief-ed the Iranians. I suspect the Iranians also wanted interest on their money, which in the 1979 -- 1985 era, was close to 20 percent.
The assumption that the Catholic vote is a swing vote doesn’t conform to the presidential election returns. In general, the more Catholic the state, the more Democratic. The region with the highest percentage of Catholics is New England and the Middle Atlantic states, none of which has gone Republican in a general election since 1988 (except Bush taking NH in 2000). Of the states with the largest shares of Catholics, only Texas is consistently Republican and only Florida and Ohio are true swing states. Michigan, Illinois, California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, New Mexico and Oregon have gone Democratic in every election.
What reason is there to believe a President Trump would pay any attention to a Supreme Court decision going against him. Or any court, for that matter?
Another problem with a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran is that there is no reason the Iranians would believe that they were acting without prior approval from Washington, but instead acting as our cats-paw. That would leave our Navy in the Persian Gulf in an extremely dangerous position. The Iranians would retaliate for such an attack by firing on American warships in the Gulf and Arabian sea. Thus an Israeli attack without prior notice to Washington, as Bibi has threatened repeatedly, could produce heavy American naval casualties from a rain of antiship missiles.
When the Iranian air force began running out of the Phoenix missiles for the F-14 Tomcats the U.S. had sold them in palmier days, the IDF stepped in. Israeli technicians showed the Iranians how to convert Hawk ground-based antiaircraft missiles into an air to air missile and mount them on the F-14s. The Hawk, by the way, was the first American weapon system sold to Israel directly, during the Kennedy administration. Ike wouldn't agree to any sales, which is why the Israelis used French planes up to 1967 war.
This assistance helped the Iranians to maintain almost complete air superiority over the Iraqi air force. The F-14s were overwhelmingly effective against (mostly) Soviet-built Iraqi planes, downing between 120 and 160 Iraqi planes (depending on who is counting) in air combat for the loss only one (disputed, some reports claim it was hit by ground fire). By contrast, mostly for want of opposition, in three decades of US Navy service, the F-14s downed only five enemy planes, one of which was helicopter. Iran is still believed to have between 10 and 20 F-14s in service.
Generally some truth in this, although Philip Seymour Hoffman's last role was a German counterintelligence agent in "A Most Wanted Man." And we currently have a British "Spider-Man", "Superman," Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King.
I wonder if "Lawrence of Arabia" could even get made today. After all, the audience is expected to identify with Arab heroes and the Arab cause. A cause that Americans, in form of the Lowell Thomas pastiche (Arthur Kennedy), support. Conversely, if you saw ""Lawrence" as a kid, you probably have soft spot in your heart for the Arabs that endures despite all the subsequent real and cinematic villainy.
There has been much counting of airstrikes without a definition of what an "airstrike" is. Perhaps you, or one of your readers can enlighten me. Is a "strike" one sortie by one plane? Or an attack on a target by multiple aircraft? A "strike" on Germany in 1944 would have consisted of 900 or so heavy bombers, plus 700 fighter escorts. Obviously, nothing like that goes on today. But it would be nice to have some idea of what the term means and how many aircraft are actually attacking. One would think that four or five planes a "strike" would be likely, and that counting planes would be a better measure of the effort than counting strikes or missions.
You might also have mentioned that Giuliani's father dodged military service in a war where one enemy was Italy. You might think that raises the question of which side he was on, especially since all his uncles also dodged WWII military service, but I couldn't possibly comment. Also, in "normal" American families in the postwar era, kids grew up among veteran dads and uncles. So it would appear that Giuliani is the outlier, patriotic upbringing-wise. A kid who grew up in Brooklyn rooting for the Yankees shouldn't throw stones.
Even people familiar with planes often don't realize that in the three decades of US Navy service, the Grumman F-14s shot down a total five enemy aircraft. Mostly for want of foes. The Iranian Air Force F-14s, sold to the Shah, on the other hand, absolutely mauled the Iraqi air force in the Iran-Iraq war, downing over 150 Iraqi planes, for the loss of one F-14 in air to air combat. The F-14 ace of aces is Jalil Zandi, credited with downing 11 Iraqi planes, which would have been in impressive total in WWII when air forces fielded thousands of planes, but is jaw-dropping in the modern era when air forces more often muster planes by the score.
Could we have a better definition of "strike"? Is that one plane or one attack, which could be by multiple planes, In WWII Americans P-47 and British Typhoon Fighter bombers formed up in what was called "cab rank" and attacked targets on call. One strike might involve all or part of an 18-plane (roughly) squadron. Do the 15 strikes on ISIL positions mean 15 aircraft or 15 attacks by multiple planes on a given target, such as an artillery battery?
Then Nato would be violating the same agreements Putin violated. Also, there is little chance that Nato would add Ukraine. The idea was bruited before and shot down.
Putin is paying a heavy price to take something he already had. Crimea has four major Russian bases and the Russian presence was not under any kind of challenge. By annexing the Crimea he has antagonized most of the world. The American interest in the area is minimal. Until the destroyer Kidd arrived for an exercise a few weeks ago, there were no American warships in the Black Sea. Ukraine has a military of about 90,000, which should be able to make a stand if Russia moves against them (and more importantly, turn the pipeline carrying Russian gas to customers in Europe into twisted metal). The numbers of Russian troops being bruited about are 20,000 on the Ukraine border. By way of comparison, that's about two-third the size of the New York City Police Department.
Everyone seems to be forgetting about the U.S. Navy. Iranian retaliation against the U.S., on their assumption that Israel wss simply acting as an American cats-paw, would most likely and most quickly be directed against American warships in the Persian Gulf. The Iranians have said they would not dribble away their resources in penny packets, as had been the Arab practice, but would go all out. This would mean hundreds of cruise missiles fired at American warships within minutes of the outbreak of hostilities. With such a large barrage, some would almost certainly get through. It is safe to assume that American warships in the narrow waters of the Gulf are under constant observation, so such a counterstrike is entirely feasible for Iran.
Because of this danger, the U.S. govenrment would almost certainly have to be advised in advance of an Israeli attack. Probably some days in advance so that major units like aircraft carriers, could be moved away from immediate danger. Unless, of course, the Israelis prefer that the Americans take naval casualties to ensure a U.S. commitment to war with Iran. That one is a little hard to believe, in part because in a lengthy war with Iran, the U.S. Navy would have to play a major role.