US Generals Will Quit

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Don’t fret Effr0, pretty soon Bush’s masterplan will kick in and democracy will spread through the middle-east like wild fire. It’s only a matter of weeks or months.

That will unembolden them in a real hurry.

True that. Its already working magic in Iraq. Look how free the people are and how they embrace democracy.

Why not share the goodness on a larger scale? Maybe by democratizing (c) Iran also?

Its just a little stretch. Plus, you guys have plenty of people to die for your country. If there is not enough military just do a draft.[/quote]

bruce, you grow prettier by the day.

I’ll ask you a question: Has there been more or less democracy in Afghanistan plus the Middle East since 9/11/2001?

Good luck!!!

JeffR

62

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
US Generals Will Quit if Bush Orders Iran Attack

Good to see some sanity.

This is nothing more then propoganda and speculation. I’d bet that not one general resigns when we strike Iran. If your a general you understand the implications of a nuclear armed Iran.

And what are you basing that on? The article is from the Times of London, one of the most reputable papers in the world. Have you read Ricks’ “Fiasco”? There are a lot of generals who are appalled by how reckless this administration has been. I posted an interview with one of them in this thread, curious to hear your thoughts on it.[/quote]

Basing it on my opinion really.

US Generals don’t talk about the president and break rank with reporters or foriegn military officers. Junior ranks may get friendly but the stars do not. It’s a huge article 88 violation and a career killer that gets you banned for life. If they name a source I’ll change my mind. Just seems like exactly what a hostile EU would like to hear a general say.

63

[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
Iranian IED technology…

ROFL…

Semtex and a wire?

Not exactly.

Semtex and a wire and … a SCARY NAME!!!

Actually, armchair generals, the explosive formed projectiles were manufactured and mass produced. Far behind workshop production.

I’m sure it’s possible that an industialized nation like Austria or Sweden produced them and then labeled them in farsi…just not likely unless you’ve already made up your mind.

Excusez-moi, I was just doubting that you need sophisticated technology to make something go boom near a convoy.

Plus, even if they were covered in farsi language, what does that
actually mean after the Iran-Iraq war?[/quote]

To make it go boom no. To make it form a projectile that will pierce the composite armor of a tank requires skill and machining capability. Otherwise the projectile doesn’t form properly. To make a lot of them with similar specs requires industrial capacity.

If they are covered in farsi it seems they were designed to be used by people who read farsi. Let Iran prove they didn’t make them.

64

[quote]JeffR wrote:

dustin and iran sitting in a tree…

Did anyone have any doubt that dustin would choose to believe iran over our own government?

I didn’t.

JeffR
[/quote]

The links I provided were written by journalists from around the globe. What does that have to do with believing the Iranian government?

These journalists do not represent the Iranian government. It would also help if you’d actually read the articles.

Our government gives me no reason to believe it. Why do you believe the lies?

Dustin

65

[quote]hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
Iranian IED technology…

ROFL…

Semtex and a wire?

Not exactly.

Semtex and a wire and … a SCARY NAME!!!

Actually, armchair generals, the explosive formed projectiles were manufactured and mass produced. Far behind workshop production.

I’m sure it’s possible that an industialized nation like Austria or Sweden produced them and then labeled them in farsi…just not likely unless you’ve already made up your mind.

Excusez-moi, I was just doubting that you need sophisticated technology to make something go boom near a convoy.

Plus, even if they were covered in farsi language, what does that
actually mean after the Iran-Iraq war?

To make it go boom no. To make it form a projectile that will pierce the composite armor of a tank requires skill and machining capability. Otherwise the projectile doesn’t form properly. To make a lot of them with similar specs requires industrial capacity.

If they are covered in farsi it seems they were designed to be used by people who read farsi. Let Iran prove they didn’t make them.

[/quote]

you want them to prove a negative?

Do you still beat your woman?

They have been at war constantly and they cleared several depots.

They hardly need the Iran.

And even if it was exactly the way you say, it is brought to us by the WMD, mushroom clouds over manhattan, we don`t spy on US citizens administration, who are, how shall I put it, liars with no sense of honor.

66

[quote]JeffR wrote:
jtf,

Would you please stop it. Whatever your goal is, it isn’t working.

I guess your latest scheme is to contend that Bush couldn’t think of the surge on his own.

Most likely he sat down with his generals and started listening to John McCain who has been screaming his head off for just this since the beginning.

If you want to believe in some conspiracy, more power to you.

JeffR
[/quote]

Bush doesn’t “listen” to generals–he finds generals that support his policy.

BTW, Kristol actually called for 50,000 more troops.

“the original Keane-Kagan-Kristol “surge” plan proposed last fall said that we needed not 20,000 but 50,000 additional combat troops.”

But its just like Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski says in the video. Neo-cons have a utopian outlook, and they don’t deal in facts or outcomes.
http://video.csupomona.edu/HotTalk/KarenKwiatkowski-245.asx

67

[quote]JeffR wrote:
bruce, you grow prettier by the day.[/quote]

Thank you.

[quote]
I’ll ask you a question: Has there been more or less democracy in Afghanistan plus the Middle East since 9/11/2001?

Good luck!!!

JeffR[/quote]

I’d like to say yes but its hard to tell as there is still a war there.

68

[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
Iranian IED technology…

ROFL…

Semtex and a wire?

Not exactly.

Semtex and a wire and … a SCARY NAME!!!

Actually, armchair generals, the explosive formed projectiles were manufactured and mass produced. Far behind workshop production.

I’m sure it’s possible that an industialized nation like Austria or Sweden produced them and then labeled them in farsi…just not likely unless you’ve already made up your mind.

Excusez-moi, I was just doubting that you need sophisticated technology to make something go boom near a convoy.

Plus, even if they were covered in farsi language, what does that
actually mean after the Iran-Iraq war?

To make it go boom no. To make it form a projectile that will pierce the composite armor of a tank requires skill and machining capability. Otherwise the projectile doesn’t form properly. To make a lot of them with similar specs requires industrial capacity.

If they are covered in farsi it seems they were designed to be used by people who read farsi. Let Iran prove they didn’t make them.

you want them to prove a negative?

Do you still beat your woman?

They have been at war constantly and they cleared several depots.

They hardly need the Iran.

And even if it was exactly the way you say, it is brought to us by the WMD, mushroom clouds over manhattan, we don`t spy on US citizens administration, who are, how shall I put it, liars with no sense of honor.[/quote]

Cute but pointless. They have been accused and we made our case. If they can refute it fine, if not they shouldn’t expect forgiveness.

Your European…hardly in a position to speak of honor in time of war.

Iran could announce at Friday prayers that they were responsible and the cowardly EU would claim they were blameless. Such are the options the weak and timid are faced with.

69

[quote]jumper wrote:
Quote-"You realize Britain’s defense community has really close ties to America’s, as little as they get out of the relationship sometimes? They are as much a part of the “inter-agency process” as most organs of the federal government. "

They got more than a little out of it in WWII didn’t they? Was that not good enough for you? Is it not good enough for you that we, including myself, are willing to do the same and may have to do the same in the near future for you(Europe). I guess all of the American bloodshed so that the Nazi flag isn’t flying over your parliment wasn’t good enough for you.

Oh how we all forget so soon, on behalf of my forefathers that died on DDay, your welcome too France![/quote]

What is this “you” shit? I’m as American as you, born in Vermont, raised in New Hampshire, spent close to 90% of my life in New England. So why are you giving me the standard, trite lecture about America saving Europe? I’m American moron, that should be pretty clear just from looking at my profile.

And for a quick history lesson, the people who really saved Europe from fascism were the Russians. They did most of the dying and most of the killing, even though they were possibly worse than the Nazis. Over 2/3 of German troops were deployed on the Eastern Front, including the bulk of the Waffen SS, one of the greatest armies in history. Not to slight what we did, but the Russians had FAR more to do with defeating Nazi Germany than we did. That’s just historical truth.

As for why I care about Britain, sorry, I happen to believe we should treat our allies well, especially as friendless as we are in the world today. We shaft them at every turn (just look at some of the Pentagon maneuvering with the JSF). When even Britain is getting more anti-American, that should be a big wakeup call about how we are perceived in the world. Which does matter.

70

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Your post reads like an npr editorial. You don’t want answers. You want to pontificate.

So, I pontificated better.

If you want answers, remove your garbage liberal adjectives and ask specific questions.

For example, “Hey Jeff, do you think we could take out the nuclear sites?”

Or, “Hey, Jeff what strategy do you think would lead most quickly to regime change.”

If you don’t, then we’ll just have to leave it as is.

JeffR
[/quote]

Hey Jeff,

What strategy do you think the US would have to undertake to fight a war on three fronts with already stretched resources?

Do you think a draft would be necessary to bolster troop numbers?

If we don’t draft, do you think it would be possible to sustain order in a country the size of Iran post invasion?

If we DO draft, do you think it would be possible to sustain order in a country the size of Iran post invasion?

…

P.S. yes you are MUCH better than I when it comes to speaking in a pompous and dogmatic manner (pontificate). In fact, there might not be anyone better than you at pontificating.

71

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
When even Britain is getting more anti-American, that should be a big wakeup call about how we are perceived in the world. Which does matter.[/quote]

Don’t forget Canadians.

72

Between the USAF,USA,USN, and the USMC, there has to be between 400 and 800 Generals and Admirals. There is over 50 women to hold those ranks. So if 4 or 5 were going to resign, which sounds like complete BS, I don’t think it is going to be that big a deal.

I know stars like to get jobs with the government and businesses associated with the government after retirement. I drove for two and both worked for the government after they retired. James L. Holloway III, (former CNO), ran the Holloway Commission that looked into the aborted rescue of the Iranian hostages.

No administration is going to hire a rat. All that means is he is going to be capable of being disloyal if they do something he doesn’t like.

I also would like to see the proof. Sound like propaganda to me. They don’t career ending statements to anyone unless they are looking to end their career.

Again, 4 or 5 out of over 500, spare me.

73

Interesting article FWIW even discounting the anonymously sourced information.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070305fa_fact_hersh

74

[quote]hedo wrote:

Cute but pointless. They have been accused and we made our case. If they can refute it fine, if not they shouldn’t expect forgiveness.

[/quote]

So what if they are accused?

The US accuses lots of people of having done lots of things.

That, however does not make it so.

75

[quote]etaco wrote:
Interesting article FWIW even discounting the anonymously sourced information.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070305fa_fact_hersh[/quote]

My favorite line:

?This goes back to Iran-Contra,? a former National Security Council aide told me. ?And much of what they?re doing is to keep the agency out of it.? He said that Congress was not being briefed on the full extent of the U.S.-Saudi operations. And, he said, ?The C.I.A. is asking, ?What?s going on?? They?re concerned, because they think it?s amateur hour.?

The CIA has been stunningly incompetent for decades. They care more about protecting their turf than anything else.

They should be dismantled and we should start over.

A good rule of thumb is if the CIA is against it, it is probably a good idea.

76

[quote]unearth wrote:

Hey Jeff,

What strategy do you think the US would have to undertake to fight a war on three fronts with already stretched resources?[/quote]

Ok, pontiff hat off.

It think the most likely scenario is this: Israel comes to the U.S. commanders and asks for airspace permission over Iraq. Bush schedules press conference. He explains that Israel has a right to defend itself against risk of destruction. He allows airspace rights. Israel does massive damage to iran. iran whips up frenzy. Suicide bombings increase. iranians publically acknowle their support for shiite militias. The iranians ask for airspace rights from the Iraqis. They say no (or yes). The Americans deny it. iranians fly anyway. They are shot down. The iranians may/may not invade Iraq openly. They are repulsed. We attack iran through the air to disrupt supplies. Massive covert ops support for iranian regime change.

No infantry…

Only in the event of infantry invasion. I put the odds of an outright invasion of iran at zero.

No.

[quote]If we DO draft, do you think it would be possible to sustain order in a country the size of Iran post invasion?

…[/quote]

No.

Thanks. Please remember that there are plenty of people like bradley/pox/tme/brucey/dirty harry etc… who can only absorb so much. They think in cute little tag-lines. Anything beyond that, they get confused.

Therefore, I have to write in nice, tight little taglines. Beyond that, I’m just having fun at their expense.

JeffR

77

[quote]JeffR wrote:
It think the most likely scenario is this: Israel comes to the U.S. commanders and asks for airspace permission over Iraq. Bush schedules press conference. He explains that Israel has a right to defend itself against risk of destruction. He allows airspace rights. Israel does massive damage to iran. iran whips up frenzy. Suicide bombings increase. iranians publically acknowle their support for shiite militias. The iranians ask for airspace rights from the Iraqis. They say no (or yes). The Americans deny it. iranians fly anyway. They are shot down. The iranians may/may not invade Iraq openly. They are repulsed. We attack iran through the air to disrupt supplies. Massive covert ops support for iranian regime change.

No infantry…
[/quote]

God have mercy on your soul.

78

Interesting article in Strategypage. Iran is on a fools errand. The US will not be deterred by a few nukes and Israel will certainly not hesitate to be proactive…so what’s the point. Noody wants to fight them but at least two nations will not be bullied by them.

Clash of Conservatives in Iran
February 28, 2007:

There seems to be a major political clash developing in Iran. The religious leadership seems to want to avoid an outright clash with the UN/U.S. over the nuclear issue, and appears to prefer not having nukes. Apparently, they believe having nukes makes them more vulnerable to attack than not having them. This is not as unreasonable as it may seem at first ? after all, they’ll never be able to have enough nukes to deter the US, and so their nuclear “threat” will have little impact on American policy. Worse, even if they have just one or two nukes, it will be enough to seriously threaten Israel, which they believe would have no compunctions in taking preemptive action.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, appears to ignore this calculus. He keeps saying the country has a right to do anything it wants in the nuclear field. This is part of the growing power struggle between the more radical Ahmadinejad and the more conservative clergy. The religious leadership has already several times told Ahmadinejad that the country’s nuclear program is their responsibility, not his. That’s because the powers of the Iranian president are restricted to domestic issues, and do not cover the armed forces or foreign policy. Ahmadinejad does have a lot of support among the rural peasantry and national militia. But in a clash with the clerics he’ll almost certainly lose, mainly because the religious conservatives and the social liberals in the country would unite behind the mullahs.

79

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
It think the most likely scenario is this: Israel comes to the U.S. commanders and asks for airspace permission over Iraq. Bush schedules press conference. He explains that Israel has a right to defend itself against risk of destruction. He allows airspace rights. Israel does massive damage to iran. iran whips up frenzy. Suicide bombings increase. iranians publically acknowle their support for shiite militias. The iranians ask for airspace rights from the Iraqis. They say no (or yes). The Americans deny it. iranians fly anyway. They are shot down. The iranians may/may not invade Iraq openly. They are repulsed. We attack iran through the air to disrupt supplies. Massive covert ops support for iranian regime change.

No infantry…

God have mercy on your soul.[/quote]

lixy,

I hope some day you wake up and realize that you’ve been rooting for the wrong side.

JeffR

80

[quote]hedo wrote:
Interesting article in Strategypage. Iran is on a fools errand. The US will not be deterred by a few nukes and Israel will certainly not hesitate to be proactive…so what’s the point. Noody wants to fight them but at least two nations will not be bullied by them.

Clash of Conservatives in Iran
February 28, 2007:

There seems to be a major political clash developing in Iran. The religious leadership seems to want to avoid an outright clash with the UN/U.S. over the nuclear issue, and appears to prefer not having nukes. Apparently, they believe having nukes makes them more vulnerable to attack than not having them. This is not as unreasonable as it may seem at first ? after all, they’ll never be able to have enough nukes to deter the US, and so their nuclear “threat” will have little impact on American policy. Worse, even if they have just one or two nukes, it will be enough to seriously threaten Israel, which they believe would have no compunctions in taking preemptive action.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, appears to ignore this calculus. He keeps saying the country has a right to do anything it wants in the nuclear field. This is part of the growing power struggle between the more radical Ahmadinejad and the more conservative clergy. The religious leadership has already several times told Ahmadinejad that the country’s nuclear program is their responsibility, not his. That’s because the powers of the Iranian president are restricted to domestic issues, and do not cover the armed forces or foreign policy. Ahmadinejad does have a lot of support among the rural peasantry and national militia. But in a clash with the clerics he’ll almost certainly lose, mainly because the religious conservatives and the social liberals in the country would unite behind the mullahs.

[/quote]

Hedo,

I’d feel alot better if we had some specifics. If the mullahs do indeed have the majority of control over the armed forces, it makes me very angry/nervous to hear about elite iranian units and their activity in Iraq.

Unless we had some specific evidence that the mullahs aren’t openly hostile and/or would be willing to squelch this nuclear buildup, I’m still nervous as hell.

In short, at this point, it’s hard to believe that the mullahs are on the side of peace.

I WOULD LOVE to be wrong.

JeffR