Negroponte seems to refune to go down “that road” again.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh?page=5
[quote]jumper wrote:
Quote- "There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,? a source with close ties to British intelligence said.
This is all you have, a source with close ties? What Generals? Petreaus maybe? Yes? No? Who?Please tell me you have more than this! This is just hearsay anti-American rhetoric and garners no reasonable attention. It simply has no substance. Show us some actual “EVIDENCE” please, not what a source with close ties supposedly says. By the way, Generals and Admirals resign all of the time, peacetime and wartime for various reasons, I can assure you it is not uncommon.
Unless THEY(the Generals not a source close to Brit. Intel.) cite their reason for resigning as Bush going to war with Iran and them not agreeing with him, the liberal media in the UK and the US shouldn’t put words into the mouths of people who probably don’t exist. A source close to British intelligence, you have got to be kidding, right? You are buying this? [/quote]
I hope it’s true. And the Times isn’t liberal, certainly not left-wing. Hardly anti-American either. It’s about as credible a mainstream journalistic source as you can get. Ever read it?
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.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
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.
Solutions about iran?
Thanks in advance.
JeffR
Why attacking Iran is a bad idea, by a brilliant Israeli military historian:
http://www.forward.com/articles/knowing-why-not-to-bomb-iran-is-half-the-battle/
As for a solution, we treat Iran the same way we treated the USSR. Deter them militarily through with both conventional and nuclear strength, build tight alliances in the region, and win the war of ideas (something we were doing pre-Bush) so that western democracy becomes a goal for their people. It’s not as exciting as instant “regime change,” but that hasn’t worked out so well for us now has it?[/quote]
gdol,
I expected that sort of response. I was hoping for more.
You, of course, realize that comparing the ussr to the current iranian regime is a non-starter.
First of all, you do realize the concept of martyrdom. This concept was alien to the soviet union. However, take a peek at it’s implications in the Islamic Relgion.
See suicide bombers today and the lack of them in the Cold War.
It makes your “MAD” concept invalid from the get go.
You can’t count on iranian restraint. In fact, you could make a pretty compelling argument that they would arm terrrorist groups with nuclear weaponery. See the quotes. See the fact that they are far and away the LARGEST state supporter of terrorism in the world today.
Second, as far as the alliance thing, please explain to me why shedding blood, not pillaging Iraqi oil, and rebuilding the infrastructure isn’t THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING STRONG ALLIANCES IN THE REGION.
Tell me how allowing saddam to reconstitute his weaponery and ATTACK KUWAIT/SAUDIA ARABIA etc… would have furthered our alliances.
Futher, HOW MANY WAYS can it be said or proven that Democracy is exactly the goal in Iraq? You act as though your solution pioneers this concept.
In fact, it’s been one of the top goals from the start.
Finally, what are you blathering about with regard to regime change? Are you trying to tell me that Afghanistan isn’t better off without the taliban? Have you seen the women voting or going to school?
The same goes for Iraq. It should speak volumes that nearly 70% of the population risked bombed to vote in three free elections. Are you trying to tell me that the Iraqi’s want saddam back?
Regime change has worked quite well, thank you.
Finally, it’s going to be hard to deter iran when we’ve got guys like yourself gleefully pronouncing that the military infrastructure would collapse in the event of an iranian attack.
Think about the latter next time you rub one off to this sort of article.
JeffR
[quote]jumper wrote:
Quote- "There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,? a source with close ties to British intelligence said.
This is all you have, a source with close ties? What Generals? Petreaus maybe? Yes? No? Who?Please tell me you have more than this! This is just hearsay anti-American rhetoric and garners no reasonable attention. It simply has no substance. Show us some actual “EVIDENCE” please, not what a source with close ties supposedly says. By the way, Generals and Admirals resign all of the time, peacetime and wartime for various reasons, I can assure you it is not uncommon. Unless THEY(the Generals not a source close to Brit. Intel.) cite their reason for resigning as Bush going to war with Iran and them not agreeing with him, the liberal media in the UK and the US shouldn’t put words into the mouths of people who probably don’t exist. A source close to British intelligence, you have got to be kidding, right? You are buying this? [/quote]
Jumper,
He’s not only buying this, he’s wishing for it to be true.
He’s not thinking it through. If deterrance is undermined, the probablity of armed conflict with iran rises to ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.
JeffR
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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]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.
[/quote]
A FAILED military strike on Iran will be far worse than a nuclear armed Iran. Even if or when Iran had the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, your assuming they will use them or give them to terrorists–which given the unique signature, could easily be traced back to Iran, which wouldn’t be very smart on their part.
I don’t know why the emphasis on Iran as an “emergency”. The genie is already out of the bottle–there is probably ALREADY enough nuclear material UNACCOUNTED FOR to nuke most of the earth. As if terrorists are just chomping at the bit, waiting for IRAN to go nuclear.
The ONLY thing attacking Iran will achieve is that a billion angry middle easterners will have even more incentive and tenacity to acquire nuclear material thats ALREADY AVAILABLE.
Unfortunately the mentality is, we need to start a world war to prevent a world war.
[quote]jumper wrote:
Quote- "There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,? a source with close ties to British intelligence said.
This is all you have, a source with close ties? What Generals? Petreaus maybe? Yes? No? Who?Please tell me you have more than this! This is just hearsay anti-American rhetoric and garners no reasonable attention. It simply has no substance. Show us some actual “EVIDENCE” please, not what a source with close ties supposedly says. By the way, Generals and Admirals resign all of the time, peacetime and wartime for various reasons, I can assure you it is not uncommon. Unless THEY(the Generals not a source close to Brit. Intel.) cite their reason for resigning as Bush going to war with Iran and them not agreeing with him, the liberal media in the UK and the US shouldn’t put words into the mouths of people who probably don’t exist. A source close to British intelligence, you have got to be kidding, right? You are buying this? [/quote]
And your buying all the hype on Iran AFTER what we just went through with Iraq? HAHAHAHAH…
I’m sure the generals are just itching for another Iraq on a grander scale… the Iranian people too.
Kristol (chief neocon)Suggests People of Iran Would Embrace U.S. Attack, Triggering Regime Change
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/19/kristol-iran/
[quote]JeffR wrote:
iran is emboldened by our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.[/quote]
How do you know this? Is this what you have been told to believe? Who are the credible sources saying this? Is this what you think? What would be the solutions to unembolden them?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
jumper wrote:
Quote- "There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,? a source with close ties to British intelligence said.
This is all you have, a source with close ties? What Generals? Petreaus maybe? Yes? No? Who?Please tell me you have more than this! This is just hearsay anti-American rhetoric and garners no reasonable attention. It simply has no substance. Show us some actual “EVIDENCE” please, not what a source with close ties supposedly says. By the way, Generals and Admirals resign all of the time, peacetime and wartime for various reasons, I can assure you it is not uncommon.
Unless THEY(the Generals not a source close to Brit. Intel.) cite their reason for resigning as Bush going to war with Iran and them not agreeing with him, the liberal media in the UK and the US shouldn’t put words into the mouths of people who probably don’t exist. A source close to British intelligence, you have got to be kidding, right? You are buying this?
I hope it’s true. And the Times isn’t liberal, certainly not left-wing. Hardly anti-American either. It’s about as credible a mainstream journalistic source as you can get. Ever read it?
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.[/quote]
Once again, what General’s are resigning? Yes, I am aware of this I served in America’s defense community, I know the relationship. Bottom line this report has no substance and cannot be verified, it is only hearsay, no substance or fact and no one on record supporting it except for a source with close ties to Brit. int.
Lets hear it from the Generals who are supposedly doing this. Being a former military guy, I can only assume it is propaganda, sorry. Lets see some facts before we assume this is true!
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I hope it’s true. And the Times isn’t liberal, certainly not left-wing. Hardly anti-American either. It’s about as credible a mainstream journalistic source as you can get. Ever read it? [/quote]
“The United States has always exercised as much power as it could. It has always coupled that power with efforts to spread freedom?and fulfill their mission as the vanguard of progress.”
- David Brooks , New York Times columnist, February 1, 2007
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]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
iran is emboldened by our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
How do you know this? Is this what you have been told to believe? Who are the credible sources saying this? Is this what you think? What would be the solutions to unembolden them?[/quote]
liftus,
What sources do you trust? Does it matter to you where I get the quotes?
Thanks in advance. I have to do this from now on with some of you. I’m not going to spend the time unless my opponents at LEAST think about what I have written.
JeffR
justthefacts,
I felt like pointing out the obvious: you are a ridiculous person.
That’s all.
Want examples?
Sure you do.
Using Kristol as a “neocon” is plain silly. Remind me again who he influences?
Again, you are ridiculous.
Now back to your regularly scheduled trolling.
JeffR
This just in:
U.S. Uncovers Bomb Factory in Iraq
The Wall Street Journal is reporting an American military raid in southern Iraq uncovered a makeshift factory used to construct advanced roadside bombs that the U.S. had previously claimed were made only in Iran. The Saturday raid in the small town of Jedidah marked the first time U.S. forces found evidence that militants inside Iraq are assembling “explosively formed penetrators,” or EFPs Until now, the U.S. military was claiming that Iran was directly supplying Shiite militants with EFPs which can punch through the armored shells of U.S. military vehicles. On Monday, U.S. military commanders displayed weapons and explosives seized in the raid that they claimed had markings indicating they had originated from Iran. However the New York Times reports the military included several items that were obviously not from Iran. One box of plastic PVC tubes said the tubes had been made in the United Arab Emirates. Another box containing plastic read “made in Haditha” – a Sunni town in Iraq.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
justthefacts,
I felt like pointing out the obvious: you are a ridiculous person.
That’s all.
Want examples?
Sure you do.
Using Kristol as a “neocon” is plain silly. Remind me again who he influences?
Again, you are ridiculous.
Now back to your regularly scheduled trolling.
JeffR[/quote]
The neo-cons’ route to disaster
Financial Times
January 15 2007
The “surge” idea was developed and promoted at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think-tank that has long served as neo-con central. The neo-cons, like President Bush, are getting another throw of the dice in Iraq…
The problem with the neo-cons is not that so many of them are Jews. The problem is that so many of them are journalists…
The neo-cons that mattered most in shaping the “war on terror” served in the Pentagon and the White House. But the journalists are a vital part of a neo-con network that formulated and sold the ideas that took the US to war in Iraq and that is now pressing for confrontation with Iran. The links between journalists, think-tanks and decision-makers in the neo-con world are tight and there is plenty of movement from one area to the other. For example, David Frum, a former journalist, served as a White House speech-writer and helped coin the most famous over-simplification of the Bush era - the phrase “axis of evil”. He is now at the AEI…
William Kristol
He is the son of Irving Kristol, who is considered to be one of the founders of the neoconservative movement…
After the Republican sweep of both houses of Congress in 1994, arguably a result of the debacle over health care reform, Kristol established, along with neoconservative John Podhoretz and with financing from Rupert Murdoch, the conservative periodical The Weekly Standard.
In 1997, he founded, with Robert Kagan, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a movement credited in part for some of the foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration as evidenced by their 1998 letter to US President Bill Clinton advocating military action in Iraq, to “protect our vital interests in the Gulf”.
He is also a member of the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute from which the Bush administration has borrowed over two dozen members to fill various government offices and panels. Kristol is currently chairman of PNAC and editor of The Weekly Standard…
In 2005, Kristol caused controversy by praising President George W. Bush’s second inaugural address without disclosing his role as a consultant to the writing of the speech. Kristol praised the speech highly in his role as a regular political contributor during FOX’s coverage of the address, as well as in a Weekly Standard article, without disclosing his involvement in the speech either time…
Yellow Journalism at The Weekly Standard
“Who does he influence?” - Ah, you maybe…
[quote]JeffR wrote:
unearth,
iran is emboldened by our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are counting on people like yourself allowing them to do whatever they wish. They are betting they’ll be able to do whatever they want.
Oh, it won’t be Bush who ultimately deals with iran.
As far as motivation, that is a frightening thought. You can see plenty of guys on this forum who don’t think iran is a threat.
Convincing the populace that that iran is a deadly threat would be the great challenge for the next President.
As an aside, it gives me no pleasure to point out the fact that there is silence or opposition from the cabal who loudly proclaimed “Hey, if we remove saddam to foster freedom, why don’t we remove all the dictators?” or “iran is more of a threat than Iraq ever was.”
It was all hot air. Those people wouldn’t support anything Bush did under any circumstances.
JeffR
[/quote]
Hey Jeff,
You didn’t answer any of my questions.
So I’ll ask again…
How feasible do you honestly think attacking Iran would be?
The military is already stretched damn thin. A three front war with our current military capabilities could be a recipe for disaster.
GW’s administration would, more than likely, have to draft.
A draft would be very unpopular, not to mention you’d be forcing people who don’t want to fight into combat. How well do you think combat units do when moral is abysmally low?
Hell, with this generations slacker mentality, the Iranians could probably kick the crap out of hastily trained unmotivated troops.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
iran is emboldened by our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
How do you know this? Is this what you have been told to believe? Who are the credible sources saying this? Is this what you think? What would be the solutions to unembolden them?
liftus,
What sources do you trust? Does it matter to you where I get the quotes?
Thanks in advance. I have to do this from now on with some of you. I’m not going to spend the time unless my opponents at LEAST think about what I have written.
JeffR[/quote]
Its not good enough for me to be told that such and such will happen or is happening. I want to know how. I want to know why you deem the implications from said event to be important. You offer virtually no analysis in any of your writing yet we are suppose to infer that it is bad?
How is it possible to embolden another country? Why is it important that we do or do not do this? That is simple enough.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
(1) The Divide between the military and the civilians who are supposed to be in charge is widening. Once our economy collapses, the military will be given power to restore or maintain order. I suspect that, with their low regard for the civilian leaders, they will not give that power back any time soon.
(2) If Iran is a danger, why don’t we simply nuke the sites? Who’s going to bother us about that? According to Kerry, we’re already an ‘international pariah’. Okay, then what’s to lose? What’s China or Russia going to do? Lodge a protest? So what?[/quote]
I dunno. Perhaps the Ruskys wouldn’t like to see US nukes go of at their border. Perhaps they’d decide to lob a few over the pond.
What would you do then? Lodge a protest?
I dunno. Perhaps the Rusians have a few satelites that would be able to track the US nukes? Can you imagine they have something like that? I’m pretty sure they have.
Did anybody tell you you’re starting to sound like Hitler in the final weeks before Berlin fell?
Also, I’m left wondering when Bush’s plan will kick in? When will democracy spread all around the middle east? Is it a matter of weeks or months?
[quote]jumper wrote:
Quote- "There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,? a source with close ties to British intelligence said.
This is all you have, a source with close ties? What Generals? Petreaus maybe? Yes? No? Who?Please tell me you have more than this! This is just hearsay anti-American rhetoric and garners no reasonable attention. It simply has no substance. Show us some actual “EVIDENCE” please, not what a source with close ties supposedly says. By the way, Generals and Admirals resign all of the time, peacetime and wartime for various reasons, I can assure you it is not uncommon. Unless THEY(the Generals not a source close to Brit. Intel.) cite their reason for resigning as Bush going to war with Iran and them not agreeing with him, the liberal media in the UK and the US shouldn’t put words into the mouths of people who probably don’t exist. A source close to British intelligence, you have got to be kidding, right? You are buying this? [/quote]
Aren’t you one of those guys that jumped head first in Iraq when you were showed an artists impression of a mobile weaponslab?
But now you insist op proof?
[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]
Jumper, I have 1 question for you.
If the US defeated the nazi’s single handedly, why where they called “the allies”? I mean, if it was only the US, if nobody else was involved, if the whole world stood idly by while you guys defeated all the nazi’s, who where you allied with at that time?
Or perhaps “The Allies” was once the official name for the US? I should probably look that up.