DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on September 02, 2007, 04:37:12 AM
-
September 2, 2007
Pentagon ?three-day blitz? plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians? military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for ?pinprick strikes? against Iran?s nuclear facilities. ?They?re about taking out the entire Iranian military,? he said.
Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: ?Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.? It was, he added, a ?very legitimate strategic calculus?.
President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East ?under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust?. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran ?before it is too late?.
Related Links
* Hardliner takes over Revolutionary Guards
One Washington source said the ?temperature was rising? inside the administration. Bush was ?sending a message to a number of audiences?, he said � to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported ?significant? cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.
Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.
Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran?s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. ?A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,? he said. ?They?re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a ?power vacuum? in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.
The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term ?proxy war? and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq ?increasingly under control?, Iranian intervention is the ?next major problem the coalition must tackle?.
Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months � ?despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq?.
It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon?s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
-
One of the best articles that I have read in some time to explicity demonstrate the need for impeachment.
The only thing that exceeds the dishearteningly alarming possibility that George W. Bush, wastrel and entitled fool, has the buttons to launch such a nightmare is imagining Dick Cheney suddenly thrust into the presidential chair, and who then would have to become responsible in real terms for his deeds. The two are divided in terms of intent: Cheney would be lead bar deliberate, and George might just spin into a hookshot, instead of shooting the free throw.
Clearly Cheney should be impeached first, then the spoiled hustler.
The sad truth is that there is more than ample supply of cowboy in both of them, and that spells heedless to reckless.
They must be removed before they spoil more of our country.
-
It would take three days?
I don't know why a total destruction of Iran's military should require so long as that , they must be attempting to be restrained on collateral damage.
I don't know who keeps leaking these things but it makes no sense to cast blame , when any president asks the pentagon to tell him what options are available he should get a list that includes all of the options that are realistic.
-
So Debat at the Nixon Center is privy to Pentagon planning?
And Crane bases this hearsay as cause for impeachment?
Sounds like speculation to me.
-
Sounds to me like we need a draft of all males 46 and under; and war taxes. I mean, if we're going to do this, why not do it right? Why play like we're going to war only to whine and say, "But they PROMISED the bunker buster would work and it DIDN'T! Wahhh!"
Has anyone given a thought to how our 100,000+ troops in Iraq/Afghanistan would get out if things went sour there? Or are they just collateral damage?
Who do we have an obligation to---warmongers who have a hard-on for Iran, can't wait to bomb it to glass, or to our troops, or to our country, or to our allies---wait. I forgot. All we are obliged to do is please Hallilburton, Cheney and Bush (not necessarily in that order).
And we won't have many allies left, so that won't be a problem.
-
Sounds to me like we need a draft of all males 46 and under; and war taxes. I mean, if we're going to do this, why not do it right? Why play like we're going to war only to whine and say, "But they PROMISED the bunker buster would work and it DIDN'T! Wahhh!"
Has anyone given a thought to how our 100,000+ troops in Iraq/Afghanistan would get out if things went sour there? Or are they just collateral damage?
Who do we have an obligation to---warmongers who have a hard-on for Iran, can't wait to bomb it to glass, or to our troops, or to our country, or to our allies---wait. I forgot. All we are obliged to do is please Hallilburton, Cheney and Bush (not necessarily in that order).
And we won't have many allies left, so that won't be a problem.
All this from the remarks of one guy?
And yeah, bring back the draft including females . and yeah do a war tax. Just in case diplomacy fails.
-
Sounds to me like we need a draft of all males 46 and under; and war taxes. I mean, if we're going to do this, why not do it right? Why play like we're going to war only to whine and say, "But they PROMISED the bunker buster would work and it DIDN'T! Wahhh!"
Has anyone given a thought to how our 100,000+ troops in Iraq/Afghanistan would get out if things went sour there? Or are they just collateral damage?
Who do we have an obligation to---warmongers who have a hard-on for Iran, can't wait to bomb it to glass, or to our troops, or to our country, or to our allies---wait. I forgot. All we are obliged to do is please Hallilburton, Cheney and Bush (not necessarily in that order).
OY ::) But of course, she doesn't hate Bush
--------------------------------------------------
A military draft?
By Thomas Sowell
There was a time when most members of Congress had served in the military, as had many people in the media. Today that is no longer true ? and it shows in many ways.
Ignorance should at least create caution but it seems to do just the opposite. People with little knowledge about the military, and no personal experience, often have the most sweeping and unrealistic expectations, and even demands, to make on people whose lives are at risk in battle.
The military have been criticized for everything from not protecting an Iraqi museum while being shot at to not being as nice to the terrorists imprisoned in Guantanamo as people in safe and comfortable editorial offices would like.
More dangerously, TV reporters broadcasting from where shells are falling blithely say such things as "the shells are landing about five miles north of here."
Does it ever occur to them that their internationally broadcast comments will reach those who are doing the shelling, who can adjust their range accordingly and then kill more efficiently?
On the home front, life goes on today as if there were no war. Consumer goods are as abundant as ever and no real sacrifices are demanded of the civilian population, who are spectators rather than even tangential participants. None of this is healthy.
Some have suggested a military draft as a way to at least create some sense of realism about war and to share its burdens more widely and equitably.
Those on the left play the class-warfare card and the race card to say that the elites are sending other people's youths into battle while their own offspring are sheltered from sacrifice. But the over-riding question is: What would be the effect of instituting a military draft?
Such questions cannot be answered as if we were talking about drafting abstract people into an abstract army. A military draft today would be very different in its consequences from the military draft in World War II.
Back in the days of World War II, the military were drafting young men who were, by and large, patriotic Americans, people who felt that they had a duty to protect this country from its enemies.
Today, a military draft would bring in large numbers of people who have been systematically "educated" to believe the worst about this country or, at best, to be non-judgmental about the differences between American society and its enemies.
The fact that we could use a larger army of the kinds of people who have already volunteered to put their lives on the line does not mean that we can get it by adding warm bodies fresh from our politically correct schools and colleges, where standards and self-discipline are greatly lacking.
Just getting such people used to the idea of duty and discipline could be a major drain on the military, not to mention a plague of lawsuits from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union if the little darlings were not handled with kid gloves.
More than that, so many American institutions, from the Congress to the courts, have degenerated into irresponsible self-indulgence that the military is one of the very few institutions left with a sense of purpose for which it is prepared to make sacrifices.
We dare not destroy that institution, or undermine its morale, by pouring into it very different kinds of people, who will be like sand poured into the gears of machinery.
This is not to say that there are no civilians who would be valuable additions to the military. Such people need not be drafted. Our colleges are blocking such people from taking R.O.T.C. by not allowing R.O.T.C. programs or military recruiters on campus in the first place.
Anti-military academics think they have a right to over-ride their students' rights to reach their own conclusions and make their own decisions, or even to hear a different viewpoint about the military.
Patriotic and educated young Americans who want to serve in the military are available. We need to stop academia from sabotaging national defense by blocking them from R.O.T.C. and from even hearing what military representatives have to say.
Article (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell080106.php3)
-
I'm going to have to disagree with Sowell on this. I think it would be good for the military and it would be good for the citizens.
-
The draft is the closest thing to involuntary servitude that has ever been legal in the US since 1865.
If there were a draft today, tomorrow there would be demonstrations as big as anything Vietnam ever provoked.
If you look at the nightly news where the soldiers killed are from, observe that they are mostly from small and tiny towns, not the big cities.
The big city people will not enlist, and would take to the streets before going.
There would have to be an attack a lot worse than 9-11 to get any sympathy for a draft in the US today.
Not that I would put it past Dick Cheney to arrange for one if he thought he could get away with it.
-
And yet Lanya wants to facilitate such an apparent uprising. Go figure
-
I'm going to have to disagree with Sowell on this. I think it would be good for the military and it would be good for the citizens.
As well intentioned as that sounds, I'm liking the voluntary component to it, providing the military with individuals who are compelled to serve their country because it's a duty & honor to them, regardless of how low some people think they hang. The alternative is likely how Sowell describes it, an infusion of folks who have not just no desire, but no discipline, and a current litigation mentality that permeates our society
-
I'm going to have to disagree with Sowell on this. I think it would be good for the military and it would be good for the citizens.
As well intentioned as that sounds, I'm liking the voluntary component to it, providing the military with individuals who are compelled to serve their country because it's a duty & honor to them, regardless of how low some people think they hang. The alternative is likely how Sowell describes it, an infusion of folks who have not just no desire, but no discipline, and a current litigation mentality that permeates our society
Duty and honor?
LMAO
In my opinion, getting your ass blown off for Halliburton imperialism is singularly without honor.
Only a fool these days could believe he has a duty to die for corporatism and its craven imperialism.
To serve 'proudly' in America's military today is merely to hang a tag on oneself which exclaims: "I am vain and clueless." People of real character would shudder at the thought of actually murdering innocent Iraqi's in order to cap their oil reserves.
I hope and pray they initiate the draft. Truth will wake and shake the hibernation, emerging from the cave hungry and ready.
And Sowell, a self-loathing quasi-intellectual always ready to go down for a buck, dutifully earns his blood wages by bemoaning the general weakness of character of the recruited GI--our poor army is defeated before it is manifest, and shame shame shame for lacking the moral turpitude to carry Cheney's banner. . . meanwhile the Neocon drafted war in Iraq causes Clauswitz to turn over in his grave at the sheer incompetency, an incompetancy only overshadowed by the ineptness of those appointed to oversee a democracy make-over.
Duty and honor are our greatest asset; they have been on leave for some time now . . . how dare your skinny little cheeks for dishonoring them by including them as a part of this modern day military travesty.
-
The draft is the closest thing to involuntary servitude that has ever been legal in the US since 1865.
If there were a draft today, tomorrow there would be demonstrations as big as anything Vietnam ever provoked.
If you look at the nightly news where the soldiers killed are from, observe that they are mostly from small and tiny towns, not the big cities.
The big city people will not enlist, and would take to the streets before going.
There would have to be an attack a lot worse than 9-11 to get any sympathy for a draft in the US today.
Not that I would put it past Dick Cheney to arrange for one if he thought he could get away with it.
The draft should never have been stopped. It is positive for many reasons, including it is a great diversity tool. And it can mature young boys into men. It should be required for all able-bodied males. Voluntary for females. There could be exceptions, of course, Very limited ones.
Draft dodgers should be given a choice: either be incarcerated or your citizenship be revoked or both.
-
I'm going to have to disagree with Sowell on this. I think it would be good for the military and it would be good for the citizens.
As well intentioned as that sounds, I'm liking the voluntary component to it, providing the military with individuals who are compelled to serve their country because it's a duty & honor to them, regardless of how low some people think they hang. The alternative is likely how Sowell describes it, an infusion of folks who have not just no desire, but no discipline, and a current litigation mentality that permeates our society
I have encountered these type of misguided souls. Momma's boys. I "educated" them into the correct way of thinking and everything went well. They were better for it. And most admitted this.
-
I am sure they all love you for saving them.
Now they can be bellicose, bragging, and yelling in bullyspeak too.
That's maturity, folks!
-
This type of discussion is degenerating here much because of Perspective's arrival. While I always hold back (or almost always) from a full embrace of Crane's mindset, it is clear to me that the "perspective" he offers is extremely beneficial, heuristic, if slightly off the big payday. These views MUST be taken seriously. Rampant corporatism is about in this land, though perhaps not in the cartoonish hues that Crane paints it. Honor is certainly not dead among our military, though "perspective," of necessity, may be. Specifically addressing Iran, I have been trying to tease out discussion on what would be worse: an immediate cataclysm or the long, wearing and dangerous slog of a new Cold War. That is how the issue is shaping up. Regarding Iran, stripped of cowboys and corporatists, we (the US) have three fundamental interests, in my view: 1) aiding in the protection of Israel; 2) assuring a continued flow of affordable Gulf oil for as long as we need it; and 3) stanching any atrerial gush of terrorism originating there. As to the third, keeping a relatively peaceful stance between sunnis and Shiites, perhaps on the verge of a violent schism, more exaggerated than heretofore, which could roil the region, upset our just-listed interests and lead, perhaps, to a general world belligerency. In analyzing such problems, I heed Crane's viewpoint just about every time, as a helpful "perspective," but reject out-of-hand the mindless cro-magnon blather of the one who proclaims his "Perspective."
-
As well intentioned as that sounds, I'm liking the voluntary component to it, providing the military with individuals who are compelled to serve their country because it's a duty & honor to them, regardless of how low some people think they hang. The alternative is likely how Sowell describes it, an infusion of folks who have not just no desire, but no discipline, and a current litigation mentality that permeates our society
The lack of desire, discipline and positive mindset would be gone by the third day of bootcamp.
Not at the behest of the drill sergeant, no the pressure comes from your peers.
Adapt.
And the draftees should drawn from the pool via lottery. Male and female alike. '
-
I suggest that the draft, along with the constant wars that this country feels obliged to get itself into, does not make men out of boys. That is what we have the boy scouts for. I am an Eagle Scout, as well as a Silver Badge Explorer.
If you give fools like Cheney and Rummy a big army, they are sure to deliver a big and endless war. But in adition to this, the draft is a major factor that explains why we have so many homicidal maniacs in the US, and so many gun crimes.
Macho idiots are a lot more dangerous when you teach them how to shoot a gun. I suggest that macho idiots are not needed in any country.
-
But in adition to this, the draft is a major factor that explains why we have so many homicidal maniacs in the US, and so many gun crimes.
I think you made that up.
-
I'm going to have to disagree with Sowell on this. I think it would be good for the military and it would be good for the citizens.
As well intentioned as that sounds, I'm liking the voluntary component to it, providing the military with individuals who are compelled to serve their country because it's a duty & honor to them, regardless of how low some people think they hang. The alternative is likely how Sowell describes it, an infusion of folks who have not just no desire, but no discipline, and a current litigation mentality that permeates our society
Duty and honor? LMAO In my opinion, getting your ass blown off for Halliburton imperialism is singularly without honor.
Well, considering the folks enlisted, did so to defend this country, how and where it's CnC indicates they need to, and considering the re-enlistement #'s KEEP getting their goals reached, tends to tell me that that their actions speak volumes louder than your OPINIONATED words, Crane
-
I assume the article at the top of this thread is what used to be called "sabre-rattling" and it's kind of pathetic in a way - - that the U.S. government's credibility has fallen so low that it has to resort to "leaked" plans, easily denied if need be (and even denied here in this forum) but intended somehow to cow the Iranian government. That the "threats" of a "three-day" and "massive" air strike, issuing from a government which in four years and an expenditure of half a trillion bucks cannot subdue a nation of 23 million people in a land-AND-air campaign, are going to impress a nation of 70 million people is somehow ludicrous. As if all U.S. bases in Iraq weren't already targeted by Iranian missiles and probably ground forces as well! LMFAO.
But, OTOH, there is certainly enough hubris in the Bush administration that the attack is always a possibility. They are certainly stupid enough and/or crazy enough to be capable of trying. As no fan of either the Iranian or American military, I don't see that a massive amount of bloodletting on both sides will work out to any huge tragedy for the human race. The Iranian regime has been getting away with torture and murder for decades now, the Bush administration equally so, albeit in a shorter time frame, and with the added war crime to pay for of planning and waging a war of unjustified aggression. As your Glorious Leader has said, "Bring it on!" This should be fun to watch, in the unlikely event that it's NOT some sophomoric empty threat.
-
I assume the article at the top of this thread is what used to be called "sabre-rattling" and it's kind of pathetic in a way - - that the U.S. government's credibility has fallen so low that it has to resort to "leaked" plans, easily denied if need be (and even denied here in this forum) but intended somehow to cow the Iranian government. That the "threats" of a "three-day" and "massive" air strike, issuing from a government which in four years and an expenditure of half a trillion bucks cannot subdue a nation of 23 million people in a land-AND-air campaign, are going to impress a nation of 70 million people is somehow ludicrous. As if all U.S. bases in Iraq weren't already targeted by Iranian missiles and probably ground forces as well! LMFAO.
But, OTOH, there is certainly enough hubris in the Bush administration that the attack is always a possibility. They are certainly stupid enough and/or crazy enough to be capable of trying. As no fan of either the Iranian or American military, I don't see that a massive amount of bloodletting on both sides will work out to any huge tragedy for the human race. The Iranian regime has been getting away with torture and murder for decades now, the Bush administration equally so, albeit in a shorter time frame, and with the added war crime to pay for of planning and waging a war of unjustified aggression. As your Glorious Leader has said, "Bring it on!" This should be fun to watch, in the unlikely event that it's NOT some sophomoric empty threat.
So who do you think "leaked" this plan?
Assumeing that is that it is real in the first place , a large assumption.
Who is supposed to be benefiting?
-
<<So who do you thin "leaked" this plan?>>
Could be anybody or nobody, but the likeliest assumption is that it's a leak, and that someone in the Bush admin close to the top would have leaked it through somebody a little lower down.
<<Assumeing that is that it is real in the first place , a large assumption.>>
It could be very well real as a "contingency plan."
<<Who is supposed to be benefiting?>>
Theoretically, the U.S. if they're really concerned about Iranian nukes. The hope would be that Iran would be more anxious to avoid fucking with the U.S. knowing they're ready to go to war, and consent to more stringent restrictions and inspections. Of course, if the U.S. doesn't really give a shit about Iran's nuclear program and just wants an excuse to get the oil, there are more subtle benefits to leaking the plan:
1. They can say the leak was a deliberate signal to Iran but by ignoring it, Iran left them no alternative but invasion or bombing;
2. Simply to prepare the American people (in conjunction with other "leaked" indications of war) that war is in the cards, just so it won't come as a big surprise, so people get into a "wartime mode" of thinking, become more malleable.
-
Theoretically, the U.S. if they're really concerned about Iranian nukes. The hope would be that Iran would be more anxious to avoid fucking with the U.S. knowing they're ready to go to war, and consent to more stringent restrictions and inspections. Of course, if the U.S. doesn't really give a shit about Iran's nuclear program and just wants an excuse to get the oil, there are more subtle benefits to leaking the plan:
1. They can say the leak was a deliberate signal to Iran but by ignoring it, Iran left them no alternative but invasion or bombing;
2. Simply to prepare the American people (in conjunction with other "leaked" indications of war) that war is in the cards, just so it won't come as a big surprise, so people get into a "wartime mode" of thinking, become more malleable.
Then again, it could be that other forces are at play.
Remarks taken (possibly out of context) from some low echelon spokesman, from a low echelon Nixon Center are used to portray the Bush Administration as hell bent on aggressive war against Iran. And that might be used as a rallying cry for the anti-warriors.
My best guess is it is a perfectly legitimate contingency plan, leaked and spun by various people to various ends.
-
Yellow Crane: "Only a fool these days could believe he has a duty to die for corporatism and its craven imperialism.
To serve 'proudly' in America's military today is merely to hang a tag on oneself which exclaims: "I am vain and clueless." People of real character would shudder at the thought of actually murdering innocent Iraqi's in order to cap their oil reserves."
You die for your Nation, regardless who is in charge. You serve, and perhaps die, not because Bill Clinton or George W. Bush is in charge, but because it is your duty as defined when you signed up, willingly or not.
You die, if need be, because you are thus honor-bound to do so. Hopefully, this is not necessary but if it is, then there it is. You dishonor the deceased and disabled servicemen and women. I spit on you, Yellow Crane, with a yellow back.
You serve because it is not only a responsibility but an Honor to do so. You welcome the opportunity to serve. I put in over twenty years doing so and would make the same decision again. I, and many others, including some in this Forum, helped saved your cowardly yellow back and would do so again. I was and am Proud to do my part. What part do you play, O Armchair Quarterback? O oozer of slime..
Sounds like yet another pansy draft-dodger to me. Only REAL men and women need apply here.
-
<<Then again, it could be that other forces are at play.
<<Remarks taken (possibly out of context) from some low echelon spokesman, from a low echelon Nixon Center are used to portray the Bush Administration as hell bent on aggressive war against Iran. And that might be used as a rallying cry for the anti-warriors.>>
Bottom line at this point is it could be anything. I went with what I thought was likeliest, given the history of this administration, the number of people with the ability to leak (or fabricate!) and the percentage of those people likely to be conservative, pro-administraton and/or pro-war versus the percentage likely to be liberal, anti-administration and/or anti-war.
-
<<You die for your Nation, regardless who is in charge. You serve, and perhaps die, not because Bill Clinton or George W. Bush is in charge, but because it is your duty as defined when you signed up, willingly or not.>>
Are you saying that (as a soldier) you would obey any order from your duly elected Commander in Chief or his lawful delegates? Or that up until now, no orders have been given that you know of that you would refuse to obey for reasons of conscience?
-
Or it could be that the Administraiton is simply trying to "corral" the Iranians, e.g. slow their efforts down. That could be the reason for the leaks.
It is not clear to me this is effective, but, as you have noticed, diplomacy is NOT my forte, O Man of Canada.
BTW, I've been to your country several times, in Labrador, the Westenr provinces and Greenland and took a train ride from Vancouver east a few years ago with the wife. Can't remember where it ended in the east. Nice people. Train ran on time, unlike many down here.
Beautiful country. Ended up purchasing a small cabin in the West for hunting purposes. I go hunting up there couple times a year with some buddies of mine and a couple RCMP.
-
<<You die for your Nation, regardless who is in charge. You serve, and perhaps die, not because Bill Clinton or George W. Bush is in charge, but because it is your duty as defined when you signed up, willingly or not.>>
Are you saying that (as a soldier) you would obey any order from your duly elected Commander in Chief or his lawful delegates? Or that up until now, no orders have been given that you know of that you would refuse to obey for reasons of conscience?
Of course. Stupid question. The only exception being the killing of innocents. Never had to make that distinction, fortunately.
I take protection of innocents as one of the traits a Man simply must maintain. Not only protection but old-fashioned chivalry. Been married for over thirty years now. Never once that I can think of, did my wife have to open her own car door or any other door for that matter if I was around. Whatever she said regarding the Home is Gospel, regardless whether I agreed or not, same with the kids. Three of them are in the Corps, one is a U.S. Representative. The girl is a Deputy something-or-other Secretary of State. Proud of all of 'em!
Never took any guff form 'em, either. They rarely offered any. Won't take it from anyone. Stood by my bride during cancer surgery and five births, one I delivered myself in the back of the minivan. Damn breech, too!
I treated all noncombatant women and children the same way. With RESPECT.
-
What did you think of the bombing of Falluja and the use of white phosphorus in populated civilian areas?
-
Didn't agree with it. Wouldn't condone it. Unnecessary.
We used WP in 'Nam, mostly to nil effect. Sometimes it was effective, but rarely. Too much collateral damage. Too delicate to handle. I saw a WP missile leak WP on the ground in Nam a few times. Something to so with chemcal reactions between it and the metal casing.
They may have fixed that now. Not my area of specialty.
-
How many troops do you think the U.S. should have in Iraq to crush all opposition and how long would they have to stay to make sure the same old shit doesn't pop us as soon as they're gone?
-
Depends. What conditions am I allowed to operate under? What are my primary and secondary objectives? What resources are under my command? Do I have political cover?
-
You're alllowed total military control over every aspect of Iraqi life. Same powers as MacArthur in Japan. Your resources are military and the entire civilian population of Iraq, including disarmed Iraqi military. Whatever expertise the think-tanks, universities and/or businesses in the U.S. wish to contribute voluntarily and a liberal budget to pay for it. Total control over every aspect of the petroleum industry and resources and total discretionary use of the profits.
Your primary objective is pacification, secondary the creation of a government that is reasonably stable and enjoys the support of the people.
You have all the political cover you need.
-
I say now, THIS might be intriguing.
Cannot turn this tasking down.
I'll crunch some numbers and get back to you, probably this evening.
-
Looking forward to it. I've already figured out how I'd handle it, but I'm a rank amateur.
-
Looking forward to it. I've already figured out how I'd handle it, but I'm a rank amateur.
Well, we ALL are until it happens. I learned that some time ago.
-
This exercise is futile and delusionary because it amounts to no more than a disguised Rohrschach test, irrelevant because Perspective's thought patterns are not representative of anything consequential in the real world.
-
This exercise is futile and delusionary because it amounts to no more than a disguised Rohrschach test, irrelevant because Perspective's thought patterns are not representative of anything consequential in the real world.
So what
-
I'll call you when they start giving out IQ tests.
-
This exercise is futile and delusionary because it amounts to no more than a disguised Rohrschach test, irrelevant because Perspective's thought patterns are not representative of anything consequential in the real world.
Don't believe we have met. I have read your recent posts. Pure horse shit of course. Spoken as a man in a glass cage.
Gipper, huh, as in George Gipp? Naw, can't be. Too old. And, you are NOT Ronald Reagan, a REAL Man. He is gone too. I shook his hand once and it wasn't flaccid like yours probably is.
And the Left speaks! And it does have panache, it seems. Small ones, but there nonetheless.
Pure hogwash, of course, spoken from a man who hasn't probably been out of his porta-potty in years. Probably created a permanent crease there. Kinda like claimed it as your own, huh? Well, each to his own, I suppose. Do the shit, live the shit.
It is people like me who WORKED so your skinny little white ass could stand up and pretend to be a man! So, take seat. Here's a roll (nice little Charmin for the nice little liberal) and try to learn from someone who has been there. You might learn something. At least, Michael Tee demonstrates some moral character.
-
You bury yourself.
-
You bury yourself.
lol..That the best you can come up with? No noble statement or diatribes? No eloquent speeches?
Ha!
Now, on to the Iran analysis...you go back to your little shitter. Oh, here is some nice pink paint to make it look prettier, pink being the operative color of course.
-
See above.
-
Michael Tee
Hero Member
Posts: 3476
Re: "Three-Day Blitz" plan for Iran
? Reply #31 on: Today at 10:39:41 AM ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many troops do you think the U.S. should have in Iraq to crush all opposition and how long would they have to stay to make sure the same old shit doesn't pop us as soon as they're gone?
Report to moderator Logged
Mr_Perceptive
Jr. Member
Posts: 93
Re: "Three-Day Blitz" plan for Iran
? Reply #32 on: Today at 10:57:59 AM ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends. What conditions am I allowed to operate under? What are my primary and secondary objectives? What resources are under my command? Do I have political cover?
Report to moderator Logged
Michael Tee
Hero Member
Posts: 3476
Re: "Three-Day Blitz" plan for Iran
? Reply #33 on: Today at 11:42:44 AM ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're alllowed total military control over every aspect of Iraqi life. Same powers as MacArthur in Japan. Your resources are military and the entire civilian population of Iraq, including disarmed Iraqi military. Whatever expertise the think-tanks, universities and/or businesses in the U.S. wish to contribute voluntarily and a liberal budget to pay for it. Total control over every aspect of the petroleum industry and resources and total discretionary use of the profits.
Your primary objective is pacification, secondary the creation of a government that is reasonably stable and enjoys the support of the people.
You have all the political cover you need.
Report to moderator Logged
Mr_Perceptive
Jr. Member
Posts: 93
Re: "Three-Day Blitz" plan for Iran
? Reply #34 on: Today at 12:24:35 PM ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say now, THIS might be intriguing.
Cannot turn this tasking down.
I'll crunch some numbers and get back to you, probably this evening.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Allllll right!
This looks like something !
I also await with intrest.
-
>>Sounds to me like we need a draft of all males 46 and under ... <<
Why just males?
-
"Why just males" you ask?
If they were to reinstate the draft and send draftees to Iraq, this would be insane, as it would result in more resistance than the final days of Vietnam. Now if you were to draft women, that would be worse than twice as bad.
Bubba didn't raise Dixie Lee to be no soldier. The few deluded remaining ratwing believers in the US live in little towns where drafting women would be about as popular as forced intermarriage and compulsory abortions.
-
What did you think of the bombing of Falluja and the use of white phosphorus in populated civilian areas?
General Sherman would have liked it fine.
If he had had WP Atlanta would have burnt all the hotter.
And he would have explaned it the same way , whatever makes the war shorter is worth doing.
-
If women are allowed to voluneer and serve i don't see why they are too delicate to be drafted.
Seems like a chauvinistic attitude to me.
-
You will find that most Americans do not think that women should be drafted.
Some women make fine soldiers, but many more would not.
There are more than enough men to win any war in Iraq, provided that they would actually step forward and allow themselves to be made into soldiers. I don;'t think this would happen, but we will never know, because there won't be any draft without an attack a whole lot worse than 9-11.
-
You will find that most Americans do not think that women should be drafted.
Are most americans in favor of gender equality?
-
>>Bubba didn't raise Dixie Lee to be no soldier.<<
lol ... I see, it's the dumb ass southern folk who would protest.
Anyway, I'm bettin' Dixie Lee would kick your ass.
-
What did you think of the bombing of Falluja and the use of white phosphorus in populated civilian areas?
General Sherman would have liked it fine.
If he had had WP Atlanta would have burnt all the hotter.
And he would have explaned it the same way , whatever makes the war shorter is worth doing.
You cannot expand Sherman's notion on assumption.
You seem to assume he would maintain the philosophy of always doing whatever to shorten any war, when it may just well may be that his assessment was concerned with the one noted by the stiffly recalcitrant attempt to maintain a thousand feudal lordships across the South, at the expense of the slaves they whipped and brutalized. (Please do not post any Uncle Tom 'unsolicited' endorsements put out by DAR or Heritage Foundation.)
If the South had had more tough love like they got from Sherman, it would be a better South today.
extremism of the one he considered.
-
I am crunching the numbers now. Gonna be another day or so, however, in order to enhance the accuracy.
-
KIcking my ass is not what we are discussing. I am no threat to the welfare of any US citizen.
It is not that I consider rural Southerners to be "dumbass". Au contraire, they are the ones who would LEAST protest their wimmenfolk being drafted, and even they woudl be pissed off.
It is forcing Dixie Lee to go to boot camp and then forcing her to kick the Iraqi's ass, and at the same time forcing her kinfolk to accept this involuntary servitude, that will tend to piss everyone off. If she gets killed, that will REALLY piss them off.
]There will be no Iraq War draft. The ods are 100 to one against this. But the odds are at least 1000 to one against them drafting women into the military.
The entire discussion is utterly moot.
-
If women are allowed to voluneer and serve i don't see why they are too delicate to be drafted.
Seems like a chauvinistic attitude to me.
It seems there would have to be a law that, if married with children, only 1 person from that couple could be drafted. That complicates matters a great deal.
-
If women are allowed to voluneer and serve i don't see why they are too delicate to be drafted.
Seems like a chauvinistic attitude to me.
It seems there would have to be a law that, if married with children, only 1 person from that couple could be drafted. That complicates matters a great deal.
We got that law after the incident of the Sullivan brothers.
http://www.castletown.com/Brothers.htm
-
I am crunching the numbers now. Gonna be another day or so, however, in order to enhance the accuracy.
I am afriad I am delayed by a consulting gig. My analysis will be delayed. My sincerest apologies.
-
<<I am afriad I am delayed by a consulting gig. My analysis will be delayed. My sincerest apologies.>>
No need for apologies. For most of us, this is a second life, and life no. 1 has to come first.
-
I am crunching the numbers now. Gonna be another day or so, however, in order to enhance the accuracy.
I am afriad I am delayed by a consulting gig. My analysis will be delayed. My sincerest apologies.
It will probably be all the better for the wait.
-
What did you think of the bombing of Falluja and the use of white phosphorus in populated civilian areas?
General Sherman would have liked it fine.
If he had had WP Atlanta would have burnt all the hotter.
And he would have explaned it the same way , whatever makes the war shorter is worth doing.
You cannot expand Sherman's notion on assumption.
You seem to assume he would maintain the philosophy of always doing whatever to shorten any war, when it may just well may be that his assessment was concerned with the one noted by the stiffly recalcitrant attempt to maintain a thousand feudal lordships across the South, at the expense of the slaves they whipped and brutalized. (Please do not post any Uncle Tom 'unsolicited' endorsements put out by DAR or Heritage Foundation.)
If the South had had more tough love like they got from Sherman, it would be a better South today.
extremism of the one he considered.
Are you agreeing with me or agreeing with Sherman ?
I am sorry I didn't understand .
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/sherman/sherman-to-burn-atlanta.html
"I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success. "
I gotta say he writes a mean letter.
-
Ex-ABC consultant said to fake interview
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television WriterThu Sep 13, 7:53 PM ET
A former ABC News consultant fired last year because he couldn't authenticate academic credentials is at the center of a new dispute over apparently faked interviews with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Gates and others.
The consultant, Alexis Debat, quit the Nixon Center, a Washington think tank, on Wednesday after Obama's representatives claimed an interview with the senator appearing under Debat's byline in the French magazine Politique Internationale never took place. The interview quoted the Democratic presidential candidate as saying the Iraq war was "a defeat for America."
Pelosi, Gates, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg all said they never gave interviews that appeared in the magazine under Debat's byline, ABC News' Web site, the Blotter, reported on Thursday.
Debat acknowledged to The Associated Press on Thursday that he never conducted any of the interviews published under his byline. He said he hired another reporter, Rob Sherman, to conduct the Obama interview. He said he translated the remarks and sent them in to the French journal, which published it under Debat's byline.
No one immediately responded to a message left at what Debat said was Sherman's phone number.
In the other cases, Debat said he drafted questions for the political figures for Politique Internationale. The magazine sent back "answers" that he translated, wrote an introduction for and sent back with his byline, he said.
"They do some weird things over there," he said.
Politique Internationale editor and political scientist Patrick Wajsman founded the magazine nearly 30 years ago. He called Debat "a grand liar" and said he had hired a lawyer to pursue "all possible measures" against him.
"We are the first victims. I am falling from the moon," he told The AP. "We were betrayed."
He noted that Debat worked for the journal for four years, starting after he was already working for ABC and the Nixon Center. "How could we possibly doubt someone who worked for ABC, who worked for the Nixon Center? How could we possibly doubt someone from several thousand kilometers away?" he asked.
When a user clicks on articles under Debat's byline on the Politique Internationale Web site, a blank screen appears.
The Blotter quoted a U.N. official as saying Wajsman was told in 2005 that the interview with Annan was faked. A second "interview" with Annan posted earlier this year instead included portions of a speech he had made at Princeton University passed off as an interview, the Web site said.
Debat had been a consultant at ABC News since shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, reporting on terrorism issues, said Brian Ross, chief of ABC News' investigative unit.
In May, ABC was contacted by the French embassy and told to check on Debat's credentials. Debat had claimed to have a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne, but ABC could not verify this. He was fired and ABC began looking back at Debat's work to see if anything was false. They found no evidence of incorrect material, said Ross, adding that most of the information Debat provided was verified by others.
Debat said his Ph.D had been held up on technicalities and that he had completed all the required work. He said he believed someone in the French government was out to get him because they didn't like his work on ABC.
Debat has been extensively quoted by other media, including the AP, which included his remarks in three stories.
He was identified as a terrorism consultant in a 2004 story about CIA Director George Tenet's resignation and quoted as saying Tenet had a reputation as a yes-man for President Bush.
And he was quoted twice in 2001, identified as a former French Defense Ministry analyst. In one story, he said the United States and France has increased their intelligence-sharing. He was the main source for the second story, in which he said police had found a notebook with codes that could help decipher messages within Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.
The AP has started investigating whether the information provided by Debat was accurate. A duty officer at the Defense Ministry could not immediately confirm Thursday night whether Debat had worked for the ministry.
Since the revelations about the fabricated interviews, ABC News also is going back again to check over Debat's work, sending people to Pakistan and Europe, Ross said.
"We're working hard to make sure that everything he was involved in that we reported stands up," Ross said, "and if it doesn't, we'll report it immediately."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070913/ap_en_tv/fake_interviews_3&printer=1;_ylt=AgPK62qFowJ8mgs1F3bTzU.2GL8C
Associated Press Writer Angela Charlton in Paris contributed to this story.
-
If women are allowed to voluneer and serve i don't see why they are too delicate to be drafted.
Seems like a chauvinistic attitude to me.
chauvinism has its place, BT. I see it in the same vein as respect and courtesy. My daughter calls me chauvinistic and that's fine with me. Don't let the PC police try to tell you it's a negative thing.
-
Equality has its place also.
Equal; protection under the laws should also include equal obligation under the law.
The PC police are just another boogeyman, like big oil, the neocons an the Jews.
-
Ex-ABC consultant said to fake interview
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television WriterThu Sep 13, 7:53 PM ET
A former ABC News consultant fired last year because he couldn't authenticate academic credentials is at the center of a new dispute over apparently faked interviews with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Gates and others.
The consultant, Alexis Debat, quit the Nixon Center, a Washington think tank, on Wednesday after Obama's representatives claimed an interview with the senator appearing under Debat's byline in the French magazine Politique Internationale never took place. The interview quoted the Democratic presidential candidate as saying the Iraq war was "a defeat for America."
Pelosi, Gates, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg all said they never gave interviews that appeared in the magazine under Debat's byline, ABC News' Web site, the Blotter, reported on Thursday.
Debat acknowledged to The Associated Press on Thursday that he never conducted any of the interviews published under his byline. He said he hired another reporter, Rob Sherman, to conduct the Obama interview. He said he translated the remarks and sent them in to the French journal, which published it under Debat's byline.
No one immediately responded to a message left at what Debat said was Sherman's phone number.
In the other cases, Debat said he drafted questions for the political figures for Politique Internationale. The magazine sent back "answers" that he translated, wrote an introduction for and sent back with his byline, he said.
"They do some weird things over there," he said.
Politique Internationale editor and political scientist Patrick Wajsman founded the magazine nearly 30 years ago. He called Debat "a grand liar" and said he had hired a lawyer to pursue "all possible measures" against him.
"We are the first victims. I am falling from the moon," he told The AP. "We were betrayed."
He noted that Debat worked for the journal for four years, starting after he was already working for ABC and the Nixon Center. "How could we possibly doubt someone who worked for ABC, who worked for the Nixon Center? How could we possibly doubt someone from several thousand kilometers away?" he asked.
When a user clicks on articles under Debat's byline on the Politique Internationale Web site, a blank screen appears.
The Blotter quoted a U.N. official as saying Wajsman was told in 2005 that the interview with Annan was faked. A second "interview" with Annan posted earlier this year instead included portions of a speech he had made at Princeton University passed off as an interview, the Web site said.
Debat had been a consultant at ABC News since shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, reporting on terrorism issues, said Brian Ross, chief of ABC News' investigative unit.
In May, ABC was contacted by the French embassy and told to check on Debat's credentials. Debat had claimed to have a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne, but ABC could not verify this. He was fired and ABC began looking back at Debat's work to see if anything was false. They found no evidence of incorrect material, said Ross, adding that most of the information Debat provided was verified by others.
Debat said his Ph.D had been held up on technicalities and that he had completed all the required work. He said he believed someone in the French government was out to get him because they didn't like his work on ABC.
Debat has been extensively quoted by other media, including the AP, which included his remarks in three stories.
He was identified as a terrorism consultant in a 2004 story about CIA Director George Tenet's resignation and quoted as saying Tenet had a reputation as a yes-man for President Bush.
And he was quoted twice in 2001, identified as a former French Defense Ministry analyst. In one story, he said the United States and France has increased their intelligence-sharing. He was the main source for the second story, in which he said police had found a notebook with codes that could help decipher messages within Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.
The AP has started investigating whether the information provided by Debat was accurate. A duty officer at the Defense Ministry could not immediately confirm Thursday night whether Debat had worked for the ministry.
Since the revelations about the fabricated interviews, ABC News also is going back again to check over Debat's work, sending people to Pakistan and Europe, Ross said.
"We're working hard to make sure that everything he was involved in that we reported stands up," Ross said, "and if it doesn't, we'll report it immediately."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070913/ap_en_tv/fake_interviews_3&printer=1;_ylt=AgPK62qFowJ8mgs1F3bTzU.2GL8C
Associated Press Writer Angela Charlton in Paris contributed to this story.
Wanna bet this happens more often that you think?