Generals blast US Mideast policy

[mhgaffney]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-generals16aug16,1,3111561.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true


Former generals and officials seek to prevent an attack on suspected nuclear sites and to overhaul policies toward Tehran and Baghdad.

By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
August 16, 2006

WASHINGTON — Seeking to counter the White House's depiction of its Middle East policies as crucial to the prevention of terrorist attacks at home, 21 former generals, diplomats and national security officials will release an open letter tomorrow arguing that the administration's "hard line" has actually undermined U.S. security.

The letter comes as President Bush has made a series of appearances and statements, including a visit Tuesday to the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Va., seeking to promote the administration's record on security issues in advance of November's midterm congressional elections.

The rhetoric has increased since last week's Democratic primary in Connecticut, in which antiwar political newcomer Ned Lamont defeated three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman to become the party's Senate candidate — a victory that senior administration officials are describing as a sign that Democrats are embracing their party's extreme left.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, one of the letter's signers and a former military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara in the 1960s, said the group was particularly concerned about administration policies toward Iran, believing them to be a possible prelude to a military attack on suspected nuclear sites in that country.

Gard said the signatories — who included retired Marine Corps Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, head of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994, and Morton H. Halperin, a senior State Department and National Security Council official during the Clinton administration — did not believe that Iran had the wherewithal to build a nuclear weapon in the immediate future and would push the administration to open negotiations with Tehran on the issue.

"It's not a crisis," Gard said in a telephone interview. "To call the Iranian situation a 'crisis' connotes you have to do something right now, like bomb them."

He noted that Iran had sought to open negotiations with the U.S. through Swiss intermediaries, efforts that the letter-signers said were worth exploring as a means of defusing tensions in the region.

But Gard said the administration appeared to be going in the opposite direction, adding that he was particularly concerned by recent warnings from former Israeli military officials that a strike against Iran may be needed to disable that country's nuclear program.

He noted that the Bush administration's unabashedly pro-Israel stance during the recent conflict with Hezbollah was an indication that the White House may accede to such assessments.

"This administration is clearly so beholden to Israel that it raises the concern we might go along" with a military strike, Gard said.

Organizers of the letter said the White House's recent efforts to belittle Democrats for seeking a timetable for withdrawing troops in Iraq may lead the signers to include criticism of the administration's Iraq policy.

The letter is expected to call for a complete overhaul of U.S. policy toward both Iran and Iraq.

[Rohirrim]

Gee, does this mean Hersh was right? What a shock. Good for these generals. About time somebody started standing up for their country around here instead of caving in like a bunch of cowards to these neocon chickenhawks in the White House.

[SteveTensi13]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-generals16aug16,1,3111561.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true


Former generals and officials seek to prevent an attack on suspected nuclear sites and to overhaul policies toward Tehran and Baghdad.

By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
August 16, 2006

WASHINGTON —
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, one of the letter's signers and a former military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara in the 1960s, said the group was particularly concerned about administration policies toward Iran, believing them to be a possible prelude to a military attack on suspected nuclear sites in that country.

Gard said the signatories — who included retired Marine Corps Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, head of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994, and Morton H. Halperin, a senior State Department and National Security Council official during the Clinton administration — did not believe that Iran had the wherewithal to build a nuclear weapon in the immediate future and would push the administration to open negotiations with Tehran on the issue.

"It's not a crisis," Gard said in a telephone interview. "To call the Iranian situation a 'crisis' connotes you have to do something right now, like bomb them."

He noted that Iran had sought to open negotiations with the U.S. through Swiss intermediaries, efforts that the letter-signers said were worth exploring as a means of defusing tensions in the region.

But Gard said the administration appeared to be going in the opposite direction, adding that he was particularly concerned by recent warnings from former Israeli military officials that a strike against Iran may be needed to disable that country's nuclear program.

He noted that the Bush administration's unabashedly pro-Israel stance during the recent conflict with Hezbollah was an indication that the White House may accede to such assessments.

"This administration is clearly so beholden to Israel that it raises the concern we might go along" with a military strike, Gard said.

Organizers of the letter said the White House's recent efforts to belittle Democrats for seeking a timetable for withdrawing troops in Iraq may lead the signers to include criticism of the administration's Iraq policy.

The letter is expected to call for a complete overhaul of U.S. policy toward both Iran and Iraq.

Hmmm, democrats each and everyone of them. Can't say they don't have a bias towards the DNC and are now parroting the retreat and surrender party line!

And that first fellow, Gard, yeah, he definetly knows a thing or two on how to fight a war seeing on how the Vietnam thing worked out so swell!

[defenseman]

Gee, does this mean Hersh was right? What a shock. Good for these generals. About time somebody started standing up for their country around here instead of caving in like a bunch of cowards to these neocon chickenhawks in the White House.

I'd like to hear the letter before I make this call. It does sound like you have some former generals and such that certianly are pretty miffed though. I'd certianly here them out. Hope Rumsfeld is listening, he needs to be forced into retirement if you ask me. Hersh, right? I don't think you can draw that correlation, this article (not the letter) is from the LATIMES. I'd honestly wait and see what the letter says, but , that's just me...dman

[bendog]

Hmmm, democrats each and everyone of them. Can't say they don't have a bias towards the DNC and are now parroting the retreat and surrender party line!

And that first fellow, Gard, yeah, he definetly knows a thing or two on how to fight a war seeing on how the Vietnam thing worked out so swell!

Dear Barney Fife,
I wasn't going to respond to you, as you are a troll who should be forever banned, but your post does illustrate that you're as ignorant of the US military as you appear to be about everything.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hmmm, democrats each and everyone of them.
Who told you this, your boy Allen?

[Rigs11]

How dare them generals question our foreign policy. Don't they realize they are hurting the soldiers?Please someone call Rove, these generals need to be defamed. Someone call the switboat vets.These generals are not patriots! Right Tensi?:rofl: :rofl:

[SteveTensi13]

How dare them generals question our foreign policy. Don't they realize they are hurting the soldiers?Please someone call Rove, these generals need to be defamed. Someone call the switboat vets.These generals are not patriots! Right Tensi?:rofl: :rofl:

A general, retired or active, is not supposed to be questioning foreign policy, plain and simple! Leave that to their civilian bosses. When military leaders start questioning foreign policy they open the flood gates for insubordination among the rank and file!

[footstepsfrom#27]

Gee, does this mean Hersh was right? What a shock. Good for these generals. About time somebody started standing up for their country around here instead of caving in like a bunch of cowards to these neocon chickenhawks in the White House.
How exactly does this mean Hersh was right? Right about what?

The idea that a guy who assisted Robert McNamara, who single handedly engaged in one of the most damaging personal deceptions of the American public in our history is calling someone out is flat out amazing, and one of the most hypcritical things I've ever heard of. Robert McNamara should be rotting in a federal prison, and so should anyone who helped him contribute to the thousands of US military deaths in Vietnam and the destruction of societal trust in our government at a time when we needed it most.

[TailgateNut]

A general, retired or active, is not supposed to be questioning foreign policy, plain and simple! Leave that to their civilian bosses. When military leaders start questioning foreign policy they open the flood gates for insubordination among the rank and file!


Sure thing Sherlock. They sould just act like you and your lemming brothers and march to the tune of the idiot in charge, question no-one, just follow blindly!
They are questioning the decisions made by their "civilian bosses", as you put it, because of the "head up the a$$ syndrome" which has infected this good ol' boy administration!

[Rohirrim]

How exactly does this mean Hersh was right? Right about what?

The idea that a guy who assisted Robert McNamara, who single handedly engaged in one of the most damaging personal deceptions of the American public in our history is calling someone out is flat out amazing, and one of the most hypcritical things I've ever heard of. Robert McNamara should be rotting in a federal prison, and so should anyone who helped him contribute to the thousands of US military deaths in Vietnam and the destruction of societal trust in our government at a time when we needed it most.

Right about Cheney's obsessive desire to bomb Iran.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, one of the letter's signers and a former military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara in the 1960s, said the group was particularly concerned about administration policies toward Iran, believing them to be a possible prelude to a military attack on suspected nuclear sites in that country.

This is why these generals are coming forward now. They know what the plans of this administration are and they are trying to warn their countrymen.

I'm literally shocked to hear you calling out McNamara while ignoring Cheney/Bush and their equally destructive and failed philosophy. You might have forgotten, there were thousands of Americans who staunchly believed in the Domino Theory, including JFK, and Truman, who launched it. It was taught at universities. It was the SOP of the State Dept. It is only now, years later, that McNamara realized that philosophy was wrong - or at least, wrongly applied to Vietnam. I agree that McNamara was a villian, as blind as Rummy and Cheney are now. But it's a major stretch to blame him, single-handedly.

Where are the voices that argue now against the philosophy of the neocons? Or shall we wait for history, and thousands of American lives, to prove that one wrong as well?

[SteveTensi13]

Sure thing Sherlock. They sould just act like you and your lemming brothers and march to the tune of the idiot in charge, question no-one, just follow blindly!
They are questioning the decisions made by their "civilian bosses", as you put it, because of the "head up the a$$ syndrome" which has infected this good ol' boy administration!

You obviously have no concept of chain of command and respect for superiors.

[defenseman]

A general, retired or active, is not supposed to be questioning foreign policy, plain and simple! Leave that to their civilian bosses. When military leaders start questioning foreign policy they open the flood gates for insubordination among the rank and file!

I disagree to a point. The "generals" need to ENSURE their collective "bosses" have the facts in no uncertian terms. IF, the "civilian" goes into the obviously unsatisfactory direction, and puts men in harms way "needlessly", that general MUST formally contradict and question the policy of the individual and ENSURE the right people KNOW people are getting killed due to a IMPROPER tactic. Ergo, like many on this board, I am in agreement that Rumsfeld's approach is not only illogical, but has cost additional lives needlessly. The tactic at the outset was faulty, he should pay. Generals, have resigned/retired under the conditions as described BECAUSE they knew the "civilian" in question, once addressed in such a manner, would ensure that general was chopped off at the knees. Rumsfeld is a supreme screwup from where I sit....dman

*POLITICIANS DO NOT fight wars, especially rumsfeld, soldiers sailors marines and airmen do. Let them fight to win and we'll be out of there soon enough.
Then again, the iraq situation is approaching the point where a "sustainable victory" cannot be attained, no matter what the outcome. Pretty sad fumbling of the football by rumsfeld and his cohorts.

[TailgateNut]

You obviously have no concept of chain of command and respect for superiors.


Once retired or separated from the military there is no chain of command. I served in the military and understand the implications of questioning one's superiors. But contrary to your belief, once separated I can say that many orders I received made as much sense as cutting a steak with the blut end of the knife.
You on the other hand believe that one should just follow without questioning!
A patriot has the duty to question decisions which can be detrimental to our country.
I salute those officers who have the balls to speak up!
For you I have a different salute, the same one I give those drivers who still have a W04 sticker on the vehicle!

[SteveTensi13]

For you I have a different salute, the same one I give those drivers who still have a W04 sticker on the vehicle!

Sorry, I have a "Viva Bush" and "George W. Bush; saving your ass whether you like it or not" sticker on my gas guzzling, ozone layer destroying, bunny running over SUV!

[TailgateNut]

Sorry, I have a "Viva Bush" and "George W. Bush; saving your ass whether you like it or not" sticker on my gas guzzling, ozone layer destroying, bunny running over SUV!

You definately qualify for my special salute! At least the majority of Bushsheep have realized they screwed up, and have "erased" the evidence, but as always, some will never learn!

[defenseman]

Once retired or separated from the military there is no chain of command. I served in the military and understand the implications of questioning one's superiors. But contrary to your belief, once separated I can say that many orders I received made as much sense as cutting a steak with the blut end of the knife.
You on the other hand believe that one should just follow without questioning!
A patriot has the duty to question decisions which can be detrimental to our country.
I salute those officers who have the balls to speak up!
For you I have a different salute, the same one I give those drivers who still have a W04 sticker on the vehicle!
Agreed.
If an order is obviously FUBAR, it needs to be questioned. Having done this exact thing before, fortunately, more often than not my solution was adopted vice the previous order. Often , it's in the way the issue is addressed that wins the day. I will say , there are some real hard headed folks in the military, just like the civilian community. Agreed, if it's screwed up , it needs to be addressed.......dman

*It's obvious to me the SOD has not been properly questioned, OR is so hard headed he refuses to listen. Pretty sad. GW could have made a better choice of SOD than Rumsfeld.

[Rigs11]

A general, retired or active, is not supposed to be questioning foreign policy, plain and simple! Leave that to their civilian bosses. When military leaders start questioning foreign policy they open the flood gates for insubordination among the rank and file!
Not so plain and simple. When we have a quagmire like Iraq where soldiers and civilians are dying daily, i'ts good for generals to question foreign policy so as to wake up the stubborn and careless admin. If anyone has the right to question our foreign policy its the military, they're the ones that die in needless wars like iraq.It's funny that you only support the military when it suits your chickenhawk agenda.

[Rohirrim]

Agreed.
If an order is obviously FUBAR, it needs to be questioned. Having done this exact thing before, fortunately, more often than not my solution was adopted vice the previous order. Often , it's in the way the issue is addressed that wins the day. I will say , there are some real hard headed folks in the military, just like the civilian community. Agreed, if it's screwed up , it needs to be addressed.......dman

*It's obvious to me the SOD has not been properly questioned, OR is so hard headed he refuses to listen. Pretty sad. GW could have made a better choice of SOD than Rumsfeld.

I don't know what this president has against firing people who can't get the job done. Lincoln was firing generals left and right until he got Grant and Sherman. There was a great story where the press was hounding Lincoln about how much whiskey Grant was drinking (never on duty, actually) and Lincoln said, "Send my other generals a case of whatever he's drinking." At the beginning of WWII, George C. Marshall fired 90 upper echelon officers until he got a crew that could do the job. Hell, Truman fired MacArthur - a friggin national hero - because he wouldn't follow orders. Football and military should be a meritocracy. Get the job done on the field and you're the man. Don't get it done and you get replaced. Like Shanahan always says, "It's not very complex."

[Rigs11]

Sorry, I have a "Viva Bush" and "George W. Bush; saving your ass whether you like it or not" sticker on my gas guzzling, ozone layer destroying, bunny running over SUV!
Your my heroLOL the only thing thing dumbya is saving us from is cheap gas, a blaanced budget, respect, coherent sentences.

[bendog]

Once retired or separated from the military there is no chain of command. I served in the military and understand the implications of questioning one's superiors. But contrary to your belief, once separated I can say that many orders I received made as much sense as cutting a steak with the blut end of the knife.
You on the other hand believe that one should just follow without questioning!
A patriot has the duty to question decisions which can be detrimental to our country.
I salute those officers who have the balls to speak up!
For you I have a different salute, the same one I give those drivers who still have a W04 sticker on the vehicle!
You misunderstood my post to the village idiot. He assumed that any general serving under any president would be selected because he shared the political philosophy of the potus, which is not the case. Clark being an example. He actually voted gop most of the time, but he realizes the neocons in charge now view military force as and end unto itself, rather than being one of many coercive options to get another country to alter a policy which we percieve as a threat to our survival.

The link I put up to vonnegut on the daily show spelled it out. Vonnegut said bushii isn't the stupidist guy at the head of the govt, rumsfeld is, because rummy thought he could occupy a muslim country of about 20-25 million with christian army of 250K and take their oil. Military force is useless unless there's a political solution all sides can buy into.

[defenseman]

I don't know what this president has against firing people who can't get the job done. Lincoln was firing generals left and right until he got Grant and Sherman. There was a great story where the press was hounding Lincoln about how much whiskey Grant was drinking (never on duty, actually) and Lincoln said, "Send my other generals a case of whatever he's drinking." At the beginning of WWII, George C. Marshall fired 90 upper echelon officers until he got a crew that could do the job. Hell, Truman fired MacArthur - a friggin national hero - because he wouldn't follow orders. Football and military should be a meritocracy. Get the job done on the field and you're the man. Don't get it done and you get replaced. Like Shanahan always says, "It's not very complex."

Exactly, exactly, exactly. Mission accomplishment is an absolute measuring stick. I will say, you need to get there in a very expeditious , cost effective , safe and minumum casualties way wrt mission accomplishment. I do not endorse though, general Pattons "trucks full of dog tags" methods. I prefer to work smart, not hard and build team morale as you successfully complete mission after mission. Build a team that is very confident, never gives up and is nearly impossible to beat. Consistent success will breed a consistently over-achieving team, and the "peer group" will solve nearly all of your problems for you..........dman

*I have absolutely zero patience with incompetence and a NON team player. Either case is dealt with swiftly and absolutely NO compassion. I do make it extremely painful for those who have these character traits.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Right about Cheney's obsessive desire to bomb Iran.
So I guess it's Cheney running things now eh? That seems to be what you're assuming. How does the fact that these generals are against the idea link Cheney as the mastermind of this?
This is why these generals are coming forward now. They know what the plans of this administration are and they are trying to warn their countrymen.
The do? They know what's going on inside the Bush cabinet meetings? How? Because they are ex-military leaders? I don't think Bush is letting Clinton's guys have a seat at the table, so explain to me why you think these guys know anything. Maybe they're getting it from Hersh?
I'm literally shocked to hear you calling out McNamara while ignoring Cheney/Bush and their equally destructive and failed philosophy.
Dude...I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating myself here. Maybe you're just not paying attention...but if you believe I've given Bush/Cheney a free pass I suggest you search the 182 times I've referenced Bush on this board and find out what my opinion of this guy is...OK? I've been one of Bush's harshest critics. What's that got to do with pointing out the hypocricy of a guy who stood shoulder to shoulder with Robert McNamara weighing in on ANYTHING having to do with our military objectives in the middle east? McNamara deliberately spent years deceiving the US public about Vietnam. His minions are hardly qualified to throw stones at anyone else. Gimme a break. If I was on the left, there's no way I'd want anyone remotely connected to McNamara opening their mouth. That's like the Klan giving you an endorsement for your views on civil rights.
You might have forgotten, there were thousands of Americans who staunchly believed in the Domino Theory, including JFK, and Truman, who launched it. It was taught at universities. It was the SOP of the State Dept. It is only now, years later, that McNamara realized that philosophy was wrong - or at least, wrongly applied to Vietnam.
That's a bunch of crap. McNamara has admitted that he lied and participted in an extended coverup and massive deception. That's got nothing to do with his belief in the domino theory.
I agree that McNamara was a villian, as blind as Rummy and Cheney are now. But it's a major stretch to blame him, single-handedly.
I didn't blame him single-handedly, but he was the chief architect of deception...why is that a major stretch to suggest he's one of the most culpable? It's not.
Where are the voices that argue now against the philosophy of the neocons? Or shall we wait for history, and thousands of American lives, to prove that one wrong as well?
By using the word "neocon" it becomes easy to paint everything done under one easy to handle umbrella of pre-packaged guilt by association. There are a lot of smart people in the world who think Iran is bent on causing World War III, including Benjamin Lewis, perhaps the foremost authority in the world on Islamic politics, religion and culture. He's not a neocon. Maybe you forgot the Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were originally on board with going into Iraq also.

Wake up and smell the coffee...there's an insane religious meglamaniac in Iran with a martyr complex trying to build nukes...that doesn't concern you? Or are you just terrified that somebody will call you a "neocon" if confirm that it does?

[mhgaffney]

I don't know what this president has against firing people who can't get the job done. Lincoln was firing generals left and right until he got Grant and Sherman. There was a great story where the press was hounding Lincoln about how much whiskey Grant was drinking (never on duty, actually) and Lincoln said, "Send my other generals a case of whatever he's drinking." At the beginning of WWII, George C. Marshall fired 90 upper echelon officers until he got a crew that could do the job. Hell, Truman fired MacArthur - a friggin national hero - because he wouldn't follow orders. Football and military should be a meritocracy. Get the job done on the field and you're the man. Don't get it done and you get replaced. Like Shanahan always says, "It's not very complex."

The problem is that the men who are making policy, i.e. the neo cons, have put our military in an impossible situation. The mission was formulated before Bush entered office and even now is posted on the Project for a New American Century Web Site
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

The mission is US domination of the planet, including the oil fields. A corollary is Israeli hegemony in the Mideast.

Given these goals, it's no wonder that many generals are unhappy with the orders they are being given. Those who are active cannot speak out in public, so they call up Murtha or Hersh and complain in private.

The retired generals, however, can speak openly, and they deserve a hearing. You can't base a policy on a lie without grave consequences, and this is the current reality. MG

[bendog]

So I guess it's Cheney running things now eh? That seems to be what you're assuming. How does the fact that these generals are against the idea link Cheney as the mastermind of this?

The do? They know what's going on inside the Bush cabinet meetings? How? Because they are ex-military leaders? I don't think Bush is letting Clinton's guys have a seat at the table, so explain to me why you think these guys know anything. Maybe they're getting it from Hersh?

Dude...I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating myself here. Maybe you're just not paying attention...but if you believe I've given Bush/Cheney a free pass I suggest you search the 182 times I've referenced Bush on this board and find out what my opinion of this guy is...OK? I've been one of Bush's harshest critics. What's that got to do with pointing out the hypocricy of a guy who stood shoulder to shoulder with Robert McNamara weighing in on ANYTHING having to do with our military objectives in the middle east? McNamara deliberately spent years deceiving the US public about Vietnam. His minions are hardly qualified to throw stones at anyone else. Gimme a break. If I was on the left, there's no way I'd want anyone remotely connected to McNamara opening their mouth. That's like the Klan giving you an endorsement for your views on civil rights.

That's a bunch of crap. McNamara has admitted that he lied and participted in an extended coverup and massive deception. That's got nothing to do with his belief in the domino theory.

I didn't blame him single-handedly, but he was the chief architect of deception...why is that a major stretch to suggest he's one of the most culpable? It's not.

By using the word "neocon" it becomes easy to paint everything done under one easy to handle umbrella of pre-packaged guilt by association. There are a lot of smart people in the world who think Iran is bent on causing World War III, including Benjamin Lewis, perhaps the foremost authority in the world on Islamic politics, religion and culture. He's not a neocon. Maybe you forgot the Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were originally on board with going into Iraq also.

Wake up and smell the coffee...there's an insane religious meglamaniac in Iran with a martyr complex trying to build nukes...that doesn't concern you? Or are you just terrified that somebody will call you a "neocon" if confirm that it does?
It's a concern that neocons like Cheney do and say things, like attacking Iraq, that make the nutter in Iran look not totally nuts to those who vote for him.

[Rohirrim]

So I guess it's Cheney running things now eh? That seems to be what you're assuming. How does the fact that these generals are against the idea link Cheney as the mastermind of this?

Try not to get all breathless about it. The power of Cheney in this administration has been pointed out since the minute of the first inauguration by Paul O'Neill, Richard Clark, Bob Woodward, and too many others to mention right up til today. You should read more often and you wouldn't run into so many surprises.

The do? They know what's going on inside the Bush cabinet meetings? How? Because they are ex-military leaders? I don't think Bush is letting Clinton's guys have a seat at the table, so explain to me why you think these guys know anything. Maybe they're getting it from Hersh?

Maybe they are getting it from other officers who are still active and who they served with for decades and who agree with their opinion on Bush? If you wouldn't get so excited, your faculties would operate on a more reasoned level.

Dude...I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating myself here. Maybe you're just not paying attention...but if you believe I've given Bush/Cheney a free pass I suggest you search the 182 times I've referenced Bush on this board and find out what my opinion of this guy is...OK? I've been one of Bush's harshest critics. What's that got to do with pointing out the hypocricy of a guy who stood shoulder to shoulder with Robert McNamara weighing in on ANYTHING having to do with our military objectives in the middle east? McNamara deliberately spent years deceiving the US public about Vietnam. His minions are hardly qualified to throw stones at anyone else. Gimme a break. If I was on the left, there's no way I'd want anyone remotely connected to McNamara opening their mouth. That's like the Klan giving you an endorsement for your views on civil rights.

That's a bunch of crap. McNamara has admitted that he lied and participted in an extended coverup and massive deception. That's got nothing to do with his belief in the domino theory.

I didn't blame him single-handedly, but he was the chief architect of deception...why is that a major stretch to suggest he's one of the most culpable? It's not.

The major difference here is that McNamara has tried to come clean about lies that happened long ago. Lies we can learn from.
Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney's lies are hurting us right now. Sure Big Mac lied about Tonkin. Nixon lied about Cambodia. Reagan lied about Iran-Contra. Clinton lied about "sex with that woman." Bush has lied about - well, there's not enough bandwidth. The point being, you have to take into account the possibility of growth. Believe it or not, some human beings evolve throughout their lives and actually learn from their mistakes. We sometimes learn the most about bank security from former bank robbers.;D

By using the word "neocon" it becomes easy to paint everything done under one easy to handle umbrella of pre-packaged guilt by association. There are a lot of smart people in the world who think Iran is bent on causing World War III, including Benjamin Lewis, perhaps the foremost authority in the world on Islamic politics, religion and culture. He's not a neocon. Maybe you forgot the Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were originally on board with going into Iraq also.

Neocon is the accepted label for a specific set of beliefs harbored, most famously, by George Bush and his entire administration. This term is used across the entire political spectrum in referring to this administration's philosophy.

There were a whole bunch of Dems beside Kerry and Clinton who were sucked into the war hysteria caused by Bush's lies about Iraq. You can blame them, or blame the liar. Your choice.

You can go play Gog and Magog with Benji all you want. Fine. Let's say Iran had a nuke and fired it at Israel. First, it has to get there. Do you think Israel will just sit on their hands waiting for it? Second, please detail for us - if Iran did get a nuke, how could they launch it at the U.S.? Also, point out how the leadership of Iran doesn't have the slightest idea that if they did fire a nuke at Israel or the U.S. that they would not be, within seconds of that decision, turned into a large, smoking glob of molten glass? Ahmadjihad may be a total whacko, but don't assume that those around him are just as suicidal.

And if the Russians tried to sneak a nuke to Iran. Do you think we can't tell whose stock a nuke came from? Oh yeah, and do you really think we haven't told the Russians that if one of their nukes somehow slips into Al Queda or Iran's hands that, "Gee, wouldn't it be a shame if one of our (ten times more powerful) nukes got stolen from us and somehow ended up in the hands of Chechen rebels?"
:thumbsup:

Wake up and smell the coffee...there's an insane religious meglamaniac in Iran with a martyr complex trying to build nukes...that doesn't concern you? Or are you just terrified that somebody will call you a "neocon" if confirm that it does?

I love coffee. Truly, one of my vices. But only the good stuff: Sumatran.

Sure it concerns me. Is it any different than that insane megalomaniac in NK? I'd sure feel better if we had some competent leadership in this country dealing with this stuff instead of a bunch of nutjobs who still believe in the holy grail that, "If a problem can't be solved by the free market, it can be solved by a bomber."

BTW, paranoia will destroy ya. ;D

[footstepsfrom#27]

Try not to get all breathless about it. The power of Cheney in this administration has been pointed out since the minute of the first inauguration by Paul O'Neill, Richard Clark, Bob Woodward, and too many others to mention right up til today. You should read more often and you wouldn't run into so many surprises.
Cheney's more influential than prior VP's, but to suggest he's the defacto king and the one running the country, which is what you're implying, is idiotic.
Maybe they are getting it from other officers who are still active and who they served with for decades and who agree with their opinion on Bush?
Wrong. Being an officer, long serving or otherwise, does not entitle one to classified information discussed among the Joint Chiefs and the Presidential cabinet. The truth is you don't know where they're getting it...nobody does. It looks suspiciously like the same MO used by Seymore Hersh...no sources, no evidence, nothing but unfounded assertions we're supposed to accept at face value.
Sure Big Mac lied about Tonkin. Nixon lied about Cambodia. Reagan lied about Iran-Contra. Clinton lied about "sex with that woman." Bush has lied about - well, there's not enough bandwidth.
McNamara lied about much more than the Gulf of Tonkin. He fabricated and concealed massive amounts of information for years that led directly to the deaths of thousands of US soldiers while the public was told things were going good when they were not. Lumping his crimes in with Clinton's denials about getting a BJ in the White House to minimize his behavior is inexcusable.
The point being, you have to take into account the possibility of growth. Believe it or not, some human beings evolve throughout their lives and actually learn from their mistakes. We sometimes learn the most about bank security from former bank robbers.;D
The point is somebody who assisted McNamara has automatically had their credibility destroyed.
You can go play Gog and Magog with Benji all you want.
Is that you're way of dismissing his opinion? I'd like to hear more about why you think he should be easily tossed aside as a crackpot.
Let's say Iran had a nuke and fired it at Israel. First, it has to get there. Do you think Israel will just sit on their hands waiting for it? Second, please detail for us - if Iran did get a nuke, how could they launch it at the U.S.?
You're kidding right? Iran could simply walk somebody across the Mexican border carrying something in a suitcase. As for the question of a nuclear exchange with Israel...why don't you ask the organic gardener that question. He linked to a website belonging to another Israel hating wack job named Joe Vialls who has all the answers...including the answer to those very questions right here: http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/sunburn.html I'm sure you'll find it interesting...especially the way he presents the scenario of millions of Jews dying in a microsecond without the slightest shred of horror or disgust...as if he's looking forward to it...salivating at the thought of killing as many as possible. I was told by the organic gardener than anyone daring to question Seymour Hersh is paranoid and a traitor to the US. Yet he chose to link to the stuff this nut job is posting and clearly backs it. Among Mr. Vialls more bizarre ramblings...Israel and the US have developed "micro nukes"...untraceable miniature nuclear devices they planted beneath the streets of Bali and Beruit which they used to kill civilians...Israel's planning to nuke Russia...the Asian Tsunami wave was actually a US orchestrated nuclear detonation beneath the ocian in the Sumatran Trench designed to destroy and Indian nuclear facility and take down Wall Street's competitors in Indo-China.
Also, point out how the leadership of Iran doesn't have the slightest idea that if they did fire a nuke at Israel or the U.S. that they would not be, within seconds of that decision, turned into a large, smoking glob of molten glass? Ahmadjihad may be a total whacko, but don't assume that those around him are just as suicidal.
That's exactly what I'm assuming...and what you should assume also. Assuming anything else is insane. Who do you think put this crazy in power? Does the phrase "suicide bomber" mean anything to you? There's an unlimited supply of Islamic minions eagerly waiting to join the 72 virgins...and the Iranian loon is leading the effort to make Armagedon happen any way they can. The pont is...MAD very likely doesn't work with these guys...they WANT to be martyrs. The whole history of this conflict makes that apparent.
And if the Russians tried to sneak a nuke to Iran. Do you think we can't tell whose stock a nuke came from?
One of the sillier things I've heard you say...LOL...They've already given the Iranians some of the most advanced missile technology in the world. If Iran gets it's own nuke who knows who they'll threaten...anyone who doesn't swear allegiance to Allah probably. And no...I don't think CSI will be doing an investigation that can turn up pieces of a nuclear weapon to see who it belonged to...
Oh yeah, and do you really think we haven't told the Russians that if one of their nukes somehow slips into Al Queda or Iran's hands that, "Gee, wouldn't it be a shame if one of our (ten times more powerful) nukes got stolen from us and somehow ended up in the hands of Chechen rebels?"
:thumbsup:
Ever hear of the black market arms dealers? Guess not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dear Barney Fife,
I wasn't going to respond to you, as you are a troll who should be forever banned, but your post does illustrate that you're as ignorant of the US military as you appear to be about everything.

Quoted for truth.

SteveCoulter13 is like a one-man disinformation generating machine.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Gee, does this mean Hersh was right? What a shock. Good for these generals. About time somebody started standing up for their country around here instead of caving in like a bunch of cowards to these neocon chickenhawks in the White House.

+1 :thumbsup:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Arrogance, ignorance invite disaster

In a war, as Secretary Rumsfeld says, stuff happens. Things go wrong, sometimes a lot goes wrong, on occasion everything goes wrong. Then you have a fiasco (the title of the best book about Iraq, written by Thomas E. Ricks).

Military history is filled with fiasco stories -- the French army at Agincourt or the Union army at Fredericksburg. A more recent fiasco was Operation Market Garden in the autumn of 1944, a scheme cooked up by British Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery. The Germans, driven out of France, were falling back behind the Siegfried line. Montgomery desperately wanted to win the war by himself. The plan was for his British 2nd Army to run around the end of the line and go on to Berlin. Three airborne divisions (two American, one British) would secure bridges over the Rhine at Nijmegen, Enthoven and Arnheim. An armored corps of the 2d Army would drive up the road, cross the Rhine and strike into Germany.

It was an ingenious scheme, at least on paper. It turned into a fiasco (recorded in the book A Bridge Too Far and a film of the same name). The U.S. airborne divisions captured the first two bridges. The British failed to capture the bridge at Arnheim and their armored corps moved too slowly. The English paratroop division was destroyed and the war went on. Why the failure? Market Garden was developed in less than two weeks. The intelligence was inadequate. There were more Germans moving into Holland than Montgomery realized. There were not enough paratroop divisions. The armored corps was not strong enough and moved too slowly. The causes: arrogance and ignorance. The result: fiasco.

This paradigm matches the Iraq war: terrible intelligence, inadequate planning, not enough troops, underestimating the enemy. More arrogance and ignorance. Only the size of the fiasco is much larger, a terrible blow to the U.S. military and American prestige for the next decade. The pessimism among American leaders at the Senate Committee last week was palpable. There might be a civil war and, if there is, there is little America can do but get out of the way. Probably the worst fiasco in American history, worse than Pearl Harbor.

In the years to come people will ask why did they do it? They had been warned about what would happen and they went ahead anyway. The Congress and the media did not protest. Were they out of their minds?

The answer, I suspect, is yes, we all were out of our minds. Osama bin Laden in his wildest dreams could not have imagined that the United States would have responded to the World Trade Center attack with such madness. Ricks, the Washington Post's Pentagon reporter, points out that the columnists and editorial writers at his paper and the New York Times supported the war at the beginning.

Most of these writers, sentinels against government failures, have changed their minds as sanity begins to return, but they have yet to admit their mistakes and take responsibility. Thomas Friedman of the Times, its all-purpose pontifical expert on the Middle East, has finally announced, yes, it is time to call a peace conference among Iraq parties and get out. Where was he three years ago? Why doesn't he admit flat-out that he was wrong and apologize? Why doesn't he say that he was swept along by the 9/11 frenzy and the blatant lies of the administration, and that he ought to have known better? Why doesn't he credit those of us who warned all along that Iraq was worse even than Vietnam? Why doesn't he concede he, too, failed the American people by not standing up to the frenzy sweeping the country? Why doesn't he criticize the media, which propounded the false cliché that America would never be the same again and the misleading shibboleth "war on global terror''?

Arrogance and ignorance were not limited to the administration. Friedman, David Brooks, Robert Kagan and James Hoagland failed in their duty to cry "hold, enough!" We should not permit them to change their minds until they admit full responsibility for the fiasco, which has given bin Laden his biggest victory yet.

Copyright 2006, Digital Chicago Inc.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/greeley/cst-edt-greel11.html

[footstepsfrom#27]

A larger fiasco than Pearl Harbor? That's a huge stretch. Pearl Harbor is the only attack on sovereign US soil in almost 200 years and killed more Americans than this entire war has, wiping out most of our Pacific fleet. More GI's died in single battles in WW II than have died in the entire Iraq campaign. Besides, the strong possibility exists that the entire Iraq war is nothing more than a smokescreen to gain a US foothold in the middle east in preparation to take down Iran. That seems to be the scenario the left is now promoting anyway, but it begs the question of whether such a scenario is in fact a mistake.

Why?

Think about it. The US now has Iran flanked on two sides, from Afghanistan and Iraq. Setting aside all the issues related to public relations in the middle east, lack of progress towards a democratic society in Iraq, civil war scenarios and financial cost, in pure military terms, invading Iraq in preparation for intervention in Iran, if that was the original intended target all along...makes sense. If some future US strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is backed by ground forces, it can hardly be considered a strategic advantage to NOT be able to move ground forces from two directions against Iran.

Second, let's assume the current US position remains one that's not a prelude to future intervention in Iran...but is only intended to limit Iran's behavior by positioning US forces close enought to force concessions from the current government. Again...the bargaining position in terms of pure military advantage is stronger with a US presence than it is without one in the region.

Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting whether this is or is not the proper course of action, but rather that perhaps the strategy you see in Iraq as it exists now is only part of the story. In either case, if the true purpose for being in Iraq is to strengthen the US military position with regards to Iran, a glance at a map ought to confirm that Iran is in a stronger position without US forces in the region.

[TomServo]

check me if im wrong but didnt one of the greatest generals in u.s. history get his ass canned thinking he knew better than the comander in chief?
way too many brig. and 2 stars thinking they know best in this case. if they had a beef it should have been in meetings, Not leaking to the press-would have got them retired or worse in ww2.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

way too many brig. and 2 stars thinking they know best in this case.

I guess that's a shortcut to evaluating whether their criticisms have merit or not.

But I'm not surprised that you would choose talent on loan from hillbilly heroin over folks who actually know what they're talking about.

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060817/keefe.gif

[mosca]

You're kidding right? Iran could simply walk somebody across the Mexican border carrying something in a suitcase.
That would have to be a long way away... Where do you get the idea that Iran has suitcase nukes? The main threat if Iran goes nuclear would be Israel, as the only nukes they would have would be missile-delivered ones.

[mosca]

Think about it. The US now has Iran flanked on two sides, from Afghanistan and Iraq. Setting aside all the issues related to public relations in the middle east, lack of progress towards a democratic society in Iraq, civil war scenarios and financial cost, in pure military terms, invading Iraq in preparation for intervention in Iran, if that was the original intended target all along...makes sense. If some future US strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is backed by ground forces, it can hardly be considered a strategic advantage to NOT be able to move ground forces from two directions against Iran.
The U.S. has what... 150,000 troops in Iraq and some 20,000 or so in Afghanistan. I don't think that poses much of a threat to Iran, a country with a population of 68 million. If the U.S. was folly enough to attack Iran at this point in time, via either air or ground, I would fear more for the safety of the U.S. forces in Iraq. Iranian agents have been infilitrating Iraq for quite some time now and have numerous Shia allies there as well. Our forces would have their hands full simply defending themselves and keeping supply lines functioning if a U.S. - Iran war broke out.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Our forces would have their hands full simply defending themselves and keeping supply lines functioning if a U.S. - Iran war broke out.

Funny - Bush and the right-wing noise machine keep trying to paint a false picture of terrorist groups like al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbolah, et al, as one big conglomorate.

If Chucklenuts decided to attack Iran, then something much closer to the picture these idiots are trying to paint would probably become a reality.

[footstepsfrom#27]

That would have to be a long way away... Where do you get the idea that Iran has suitcase nukes? The main threat if Iran goes nuclear would be Israel, as the only nukes they would have would be missile-delivered ones.
Never said they had suitcase nukes...but if they develop their own nuclear program, what's to stop them? You don't like that scenario? Fine...they drive it over in a 72 Chevy van instead. Does that make it less deadly?

[footstepsfrom#27]

The U.S. has what... 150,000 troops in Iraq and some 20,000 or so in Afghanistan. I don't think that poses much of a threat to Iran, a country with a population of 68 million. If the U.S. was folly enough to attack Iran at this point in time, via either air or ground, I would fear more for the safety of the U.S. forces in Iraq. Iranian agents have been infilitrating Iraq for quite some time now and have numerous Shia allies there as well. Our forces would have their hands full simply defending themselves and keeping supply lines functioning if a U.S. - Iran war broke out.
The US military is not built on raw numbers. And your assuming that we don't have the ability to increase forces. The point is we control bases in both countries from which to launch either air or ground based attacks. If you think Iran isn't concerned about being flanked by the great Satan on two sides, you're crazy. They have good reason to be concerned.

[Spider]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060819/ap_on_re_us/old_soldiers_2
well no matter what side you are on 1 thing is for sure , we let Bush run amok , now it is time we paid the piper .........
Perhaps if we bring in a draft ( quick DBruleu hide)
the way things are going , we will be facing a draft soon ......

[TomServo]

I guess that's a shortcut to evaluating whether their criticisms have merit or not.

But I'm not surprised that you would choose talent on loan from hillbilly heroin over folks who actually know what they're talking about

the pentagon is where these "generals" should voice their opinion not like hasbeens to the press.
i see you didnt address my point about macaurthur(sp)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

the pentagon is where these "generals" should voice their opinion not like hasbeens to the press.

According to who?

Oxycontin Boy and the she-male?

This is America. These Generals have earned the right to criticize the doofus who has killed almost 3K Americans for no reason.

They are simply pointing out the obvious, i.e., that Dim Son's Iraq policy is a disaster.

If you want to live in an authoritarian state where dissent isn't tolerated then maybe you should move to China.


i see you didnt address my point about macaurthur(sp)

Because it was irrelevant to the thread topic.

[mhgaffney]

A larger fiasco than Pearl Harbor? That's a huge stretch. Pearl Harbor is the only attack on sovereign US soil in almost 200 years

The US now has Iran flanked on two sides, from Afghanistan and Iraq.

in pure military terms, invading Iraq in preparation for intervention in Iran, if that was the original intended target all along...makes sense.


Check out this interview with David Ray Griffin, author of THE NEW PEAR HARBOR -- and a second book about the 911 commission report.

http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html

With regard to whether a US attack on Iran "makes sense", 21 former generals and US diplomats beg to differ with Footsteps. Check out the thread posted on this board : US GENERALS BLAST US MIDEAST POLICY

Finally, given the increasing chaos in Iraq and the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the question needs to be asked: just who is outflanking who?

We would also be wise to recall that throughout history no one has ever managed to occupy Afghanistan for long. Alexander the Great conquered it for a time, but the Greeks were soon forced to withdraw. Britain also failed -- and so did the Soviets. The US will also be added to this list.
MG

[mhgaffney]

Check out the thread posted on this board : US GENERALS BLAST US MIDEAST POLICY

CORRECTION -- revisit the top of this thread.

[mosca]

Never said they had suitcase nukes...but if they develop their own nuclear program, what's to stop them? You don't like that scenario? Fine...they drive it over in a 72 Chevy van instead. Does that make it less deadly?
Well, you did mention that they -could- do it. It would take some years for them to be able to miniaturize the weapons to a small-scale delivery system, though. I don't want that to happen, but at the current time it's not an immediate threat.


The US military is not built on raw numbers. And your assuming that we don't have the ability to increase forces. The point is we control bases in both countries from which to launch either air or ground based attacks. If you think Iran isn't concerned about being flanked by the great Satan on two sides, you're crazy. They have good reason to be concerned.
I'm sure they're concerned, but I'd point out that we have as much reason to be concerned as well... we have our hands full in Iraq, the Taliban has been steadily gaining strength in Afghan for months now, and now some people recommend movement against Iran?!? Doesn't seem like sound strategy to me. Correct, the military is not built on raw numbers but when you start a ground-based war that's what you need to hold land - numbers. Not having at the least 300,000+ soldiers invading Iraq has plagued us since the start and the same thing would happen if we attacked Iran. How would you recommend we increase forces? Call up every last reserve or National Guard member left? A draft? To attack Iran? Have fun explaining that to Joe Sixpack.

[Rohirrim]

Cheney's more influential than prior VP's, but to suggest he's the defacto king and the one running the country, which is what you're implying, is idiotic.

Wrong. Being an officer, long serving or otherwise, does not entitle one to classified information discussed among the Joint Chiefs and the Presidential cabinet. The truth is you don't know where they're getting it...nobody does. It looks suspiciously like the same MO used by Seymore Hersh...no sources, no evidence, nothing but unfounded assertions we're supposed to accept at face value.

McNamara lied about much more than the Gulf of Tonkin. He fabricated and concealed massive amounts of information for years that led directly to the deaths of thousands of US soldiers while the public was told things were going good when they were not. Lumping his crimes in with Clinton's denials about getting a BJ in the White House to minimize his behavior is inexcusable.

The point is somebody who assisted McNamara has automatically had their credibility destroyed.

Is that you're way of dismissing his opinion? I'd like to hear more about why you think he should be easily tossed aside as a crackpot.

You're kidding right? Iran could simply walk somebody across the Mexican border carrying something in a suitcase. As for the question of a nuclear exchange with Israel...why don't you ask the organic gardener that question. He linked to a website belonging to another Israel hating wack job named Joe Vialls who has all the answers...including the answer to those very questions right here: http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/sunburn.html I'm sure you'll find it interesting...especially the way he presents the scenario of millions of Jews dying in a microsecond without the slightest shred of horror or disgust...as if he's looking forward to it...salivating at the thought of killing as many as possible. I was told by the organic gardener than anyone daring to question Seymour Hersh is paranoid and a traitor to the US. Yet he chose to link to the stuff this nut job is posting and clearly backs it. Among Mr. Vialls more bizarre ramblings...Israel and the US have developed "micro nukes"...untraceable miniature nuclear devices they planted beneath the streets of Bali and Beruit which they used to kill civilians...Israel's planning to nuke Russia...the Asian Tsunami wave was actually a US orchestrated nuclear detonation beneath the ocian in the Sumatran Trench designed to destroy and Indian nuclear facility and take down Wall Street's competitors in Indo-China.

That's exactly what I'm assuming...and what you should assume also. Assuming anything else is insane. Who do you think put this crazy in power? Does the phrase "suicide bomber" mean anything to you? There's an unlimited supply of Islamic minions eagerly waiting to join the 72 virgins...and the Iranian loon is leading the effort to make Armagedon happen any way they can. The pont is...MAD very likely doesn't work with these guys...they WANT to be martyrs. The whole history of this conflict makes that apparent.

One of the sillier things I've heard you say...LOL...They've already given the Iranians some of the most advanced missile technology in the world. If Iran gets it's own nuke who knows who they'll threaten...anyone who doesn't swear allegiance to Allah probably. And no...I don't think CSI will be doing an investigation that can turn up pieces of a nuclear weapon to see who it belonged to...

Ever hear of the black market arms dealers? Guess not.

I was going to take this all on, point by point, but then I realized you'll just pretend I didn't make any points and ignore the whole thing while breathlessly carrying on with your whole chicken little agenda. The idea that you've discredited Hersh because somebody else used a website that has nothing to do with him is truly boneheaded. BTW, the Russians haven't "given" the Iranians anything. They're selling them technology, just like we sell more tech around the world (especially weapons) than anyone else on the planet. Another reason we are not going to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities: They're full of Russians. I could just see how that would be received, "Excuse me, Mr. Putin, the U.S. just took out a few dozen of our top nuclear scientists."

Another point you are doing your hardest to ignore, it would have taken 325,000 troops to "successfully" invade Iraq. It would take more than twice that, maybe three times that, to invade Iran (more than three times the space, more than three times the population). Where do those 600,000 to 900,000 troops come from? Fantasy land? Also, the Iranians are not disarmed and demoralized by twelve years of "no fly zones", the way the Iraqis were when we invaded. Look at the trouble we've had with a virtually toothless Iraqi armed forces. No air power. Oh, did I mention that Iraq is a flat f****** desert while Iran is mountains from one end to the other? Gee, how will all our tanks do there?

Not to mention, the Russians, and probably the Chinese, would be furious at such an invasion and would do all in their power to supply the Iranians with everything they could possibly need to fight back. Here's another scenario, cupcake. Let's say in the midst of this fantasy mega-invasion of Iran the Chinese attack Taiwan? What then?

The reason these generals are coming our publicly is to do America a great service. They know that an invasion of Iran would be pure insanity. They also realize that Cheney, his hand puppet Bush, Rummy and all the other neocon lunatics Feith, Perle, Abrams, etc. are just crazy enough to think it's a viable option.

[mhgaffney]

Another point you are doing your hardest to ignore, it would have taken 325,000 troops to "successfully" invade Iraq. It would take more than twice that, maybe three times that, to invade Iran (more than three times the space, more than three times the population). Where do those 600,000 to 900,000 troops come from? Fantasy land? Also, the Iranians are not disarmed and demoralized by twelve years of "no fly zones", the way the Iraqis were when we invaded.

Not to mention, the Russians, and probably the Chinese, would be furious at such an invasion and would do all in their power to supply the Iranians with everything they could possibly need to fight back. Here's another scenario, cupcake. Let's say in the midst of this fantasy mega-invasion of Iran the Chinese attack Taiwan? What then?

The reason these generals are coming our publicly is to do America a great service. They know that an invasion of Iran would be pure insanity. They also realize that Cheney, his hand puppet Bush, Rummy and all the other neocon lunatics Feith, Perle, Abrams, etc. are just crazy enough to think it's a viable option.

Well said, Mr Lord of the Rohirrim.

There have been numerous studies and war games of a US attack of Iran and all of them predict dire consequences. I heard of one study by Leonard Spector, author of many books about nuclear proliferation. Spector is presently the Exec Director of the Monterrey Institute. In his paper Spector concluded that such an attack would quickly escalate to nuclear.

Some have argued that the US could take out Iran's nuclear sites with air power alone. But after what happened in Lebanon -- such thoughts look increasingly delusional. The Israelis attempted to take out Hezbollah's missiles, arms caches and command and control -- but failed miserably. Obviously Hezbollah dug in very deep. Was this a foretaste?

The Israelis also probably used US supplied depleted uranium tipped bunker busters -- we should get confirmation of this in the coming days -- but again, unsuccessfully.

No way the US will disarm Iran without a full scale invasion -- which would require as you say a million men.

Not to mention the untoward consequences --an Iranian counter attack in Iraq and in the Gulf against the 5th fleet -- -- the cutoff of world oil supplies - a melt down at the UN -- possible Chinese and Russian retaliations -- on and on.

Truly, it is a nightmare scenario -- but does this mean it won't happen?? Not at all. Expect the neo cons to lash out next time with even greater fury..

MG

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I was going to take this all on, point by point, but then I realized you'll just pretend I didn't make any points and ignore the whole thing while breathlessly carrying on with your whole chicken little agenda. The idea that you've discredited Hersh because somebody else used a website that has nothing to do with him is truly boneheaded. BTW, the Russians haven't "given" the Iranians anything. They're selling them technology, just like we sell more tech around the world (especially weapons) than anyone else on the planet. Another reason we are not going to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities: They're full of Russians. I could just see how that would be received, "Excuse me, Mr. Putin, the U.S. just took out a few dozen of our top nuclear scientists."

Another point you are doing your hardest to ignore, it would have taken 325,000 troops to "successfully" invade Iraq. It would take more than twice that, maybe three times that, to invade Iran (more than three times the space, more than three times the population). Where do those 600,000 to 900,000 troops come from? Fantasy land? Also, the Iranians are not disarmed and demoralized by twelve years of "no fly zones", the way the Iraqis were when we invaded. Look at the trouble we've had with a virtually toothless Iraqi armed forces. No air power. Oh, did I mention that Iraq is a flat ******* desert while Iran is mountains from one end to the other? Gee, how will all our tanks do there?

Not to mention, the Russians, and probably the Chinese, would be furious at such an invasion and would do all in their power to supply the Iranians with everything they could possibly need to fight back. Here's another scenario, cupcake. Let's say in the midst of this fantasy mega-invasion of Iran the Chinese attack Taiwan? What then?

The reason these generals are coming our publicly is to do America a great service. They know that an invasion of Iran would be pure insanity. They also realize that Cheney, his hand puppet Bush, Rummy and all the other neocon lunatics Feith, Perle, Abrams, etc. are just crazy enough to think it's a viable option.


:thumbsup: Good work!

[bendog]

It may not be that they think it's so much an attack on Iran as a viable option so much as they view it as something that would prevent any future potus from negotiating any settlement with Iran, or reducing US interference in Iran's choice of leaders.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It may not be that they think it's so much an attack on Iran as a viable option so much as they view it as something that would prevent any future potus from negotiating any settlement with Iran, or reducing US interference in Iran's choice of leaders.

That is a distinct possibility.

The last thing they want is to leave the door open to any sort of meaningful talks - lest they loose an ace in the hole (read: pretext for war.)

http://www.bartcop.com/tom-seriously.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quote of the Day

"War is not a time of joy."

- The most crooked president in history

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060821/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

But it is a time of massive profits...

http://www.bartcop.com/xom-806.JPG

[mhgaffney]

In previous wars the US government prosecuted war profiteers.

Today we are being "led" by them.

[TailgateNut]

In previous wars the US government prosecuted war profiteers.

Today we are being "led" by them.

Shouldn't that be MISLED!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In previous wars the US government prosecuted war profiteers.

Indeed.



In October of 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the U.S. government halted operations at New York's Union Banking Corporation. A bank official was charged with "Running Nazi front groups in the United States."

His name: Prescott Bush.

http://www.nhgazette.com/shop/uploads/bush_prescott.jpg

http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/012303A.ma.dead.htm


George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

Additional Sources:

Heir to the Holocaust : http://www.clamormagazine.org/features/issue14.3_feature.3.html

The Bush Nazi Connection : http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm

Gold Fillings, Auschwitz & George Bush: http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/bushies.htm

“Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951” - Federal Documents:
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2

Or just do a search at www.google.com under "Prescott Bush Nazi UBC 1942" and take your pick of the documents that come up. (Highly recommended.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

91.7% of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition troops in the country

"In yesterday's press conference, President Bush insisted that there would be no withdrawal of American troops from Iraq as long as he was president. He gave a long, scattered list of reasons. Among them was a claim put forward in a number of different ways that boiled down to this: "it's what the Iraqi people want."

Really?"

The bottom line: 91.7% of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition troops in the country, up from 74.4% in 2004. 84.5% are "strongly opposed". Among Sunnis, opposition to the US presence went from 94.5% to 97.9% (97.2% "strongly opposed"). Among Shia, opposition to the US presence went from 81.2% to 94.6%, with "strongly opposed" going from 63.5% to 89.7%. Even among the Kurds, opposition went from 19.6% to 63.3%. In other words, it isn't just that Iraqis oppose the American presence - it's that their feelings are intense: only 7.2% "somewhat oppose" and 4.7% "somewhat support."

Maybe there are reasons for keeping American troops in Iraq, but "it's what the Iraqi people want" really doesn't seem to be one of them.

http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2006/08/what_the_iraqi_.html