PDA

View Full Version : Target: Iran


Chiefs Express
04-20-2006, 01:46 PM
Target: Iran (http://www.intelligencesummit.org/news/targetiran.php)

Yes, there is a feasible military option against the mullahs' nuclear program.
by Thomas McInerney The Weekly Standard

A MILITARY OPTION AGAINST Iran's nuclear facilities is feasible. A diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis is preferable, but without a credible military option and the will to implement it, diplomacy will not succeed. The announcement of uranium enrichment last week by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows Iran will not bow easily to diplomatic pressure. The existence of a military option may be the only means of persuading Iran--the world's leading sponsor of terrorism--to back down from producing nuclear weapons.

A military option would be all the more credible if backed by a new coalition of the willing and if coupled with intense diplomacy during a specific time frame. The coalition could include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, Britain, France, and Germany. Solidarity is important and would surely contribute to potential diplomatic success. But should others decline the invitation, the United States must be prepared to act.

What would an effective military response look like? It would consist of a powerful air campaign led by 60 stealth aircraft (B-2s, F-117s, F-22s) and more than 400 nonstealth strike aircraft, including B-52s, B-1s, F-15s, F-16s, Tornados, and F-18s. Roughly 150 refueling tankers and other support aircraft would be deployed, along with 100 unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and 500 cruise missiles. In other words, overwhelming force would be used.

The objective would be, first and foremost, to destroy or severely damage Iran's nuclear development and production facilities and put them out of commission for at least five years. Another aim would be to destroy the Iranian air defense system, significantly damage its air force, naval forces, and Shahab-3 offensive missile forces. This would prevent Iran from projecting force outside the country and retaliating militarily. The air campaign would also wipe out or neutralize Iran's command and control capabilities.

This coalition air campaign would hit more than 1,500 aim points. Among the weapons would be the new 28,000-pound bunker busters, 5,000-pound bunker penetrators, 2,000-pound bunker busters, 1,000-pound general purpose bombs, and 500-pound GP bombs. A B-2 bomber, to give one example, can drop 80 of these 500-pound bombs independently targeted at 80 different aim points.

This force would give the coalition an enormous destructive capability, since all the bombs in the campaign feature precision guidance, ranging from Joint Direct Attack Munitions (the so-called JDAMS) to laser-guided, electro-optical, or electronically guided High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) for suppression of Iranian surface-to-air missiles. This array of precision weapons and support aircraft would allow the initial attacks to be completed in 36 to 48 hours.

The destruction of Iran's military force structure would create the opportunity for regime change as well, since it would eliminate some or all of Ahmadinejad's and the mullahs' ability to control the population. Simultaneously or prior to the attack, a major covert operation could be launched, utilizing Iranian exiles and dissident forces trained during the period of diplomacy. This effort would be based on the Afghan model that led to the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Not only would the overt and covert attacks weaken the ability of Iran's leaders to carry out offensive operations in retaliation, they would cripple the leaders' power to control their own people.
Iran's diverse population should be fertile ground for a covert operation. Iran is only 51 percent Persian. Azerbaijanis and Kurds comprise nearly 35 percent of the population. Seventy percent are under 30, and the jobless rate hovers near 20 percent.

Iran's leaders have threatened to unleash a firestorm of terrorism in the event military action is taken against them. Any country involved in the attack would be subject to retaliation by Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al Qaeda, the Iranians have claimed. If nothing else, this threat demonstrates how closely tied Iran is to terrorist groups. The United States and its allies would have to be prepared for stepped-up terrorist acts. Iran could also project forces into Iraq, but this is unlikely because they would encounter the full strength of the American military. However, Iran might encourage proxies among Iraq's militant Shiites. Coalition forces in Iraq would have to be ready to respond.

No doubt the Iranians would attempt to close the Gulf of Hormuz and block the extensive shipping that goes through it. American air and naval forces are quite capable of keeping the gulf open, though shipping might be slowed. The most adverse economic consequences of shipping delays would be felt in Iran itself.
President Bush is right when he says Iran cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapons. The prospect of leaders like Ahmadinejad, who advocates wiping Israel "off the map," with their hands on nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take. Diplomacy must be pursued vigorously, but the experience with Iraq suggests there's little reason for optimism. Thus, a viable military option is imperative.

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret.)
served as assistant vice chief of staff of the United States Air Force

Logical
04-20-2006, 03:25 PM
Sounds like a measured proposal. ROFL

500 cruise missiles, 460 aircraft. You would think he is proposing invading the Soviet Union.

DanT
04-20-2006, 03:34 PM
Then, when the monkeys fly their missing-pig formation, the grateful Iranian people will all join hands and sing praises to their great friend Israel, while Peter Pan leaps into the Easter Bunny's warm embrace.

BIG_DADDY
04-20-2006, 03:46 PM
Then, when the monkeys fly their missing-pig formation, the grateful Iranian people will all join hands and sing praises to their great friend Israel, while Peter Pan leaps into the Easter Bunny's warm embrace.
ROFL

I think trying to ignite revolution over there may be a better way to go.

Dave Lane
04-20-2006, 05:08 PM
I think a mutual strike on Syria MIGHT piss off the moslems even more than this.

Dave

Eye Patch
04-20-2006, 05:19 PM
ROFL

I think trying to ignite revolution over there may be a better way to go.

Chaos is the father of revolution...

Eye Patch
04-20-2006, 05:21 PM
I think a mutual strike on Syria MIGHT piss off the moslems even more than this.

Dave

What Muslim is not already pissed off... whether real or imagined?

Adept Havelock
04-20-2006, 05:30 PM
ROFL

I think trying to ignite revolution over there may be a better way to go.

Agreed. It worked in the 50's. Well, at least for a while anyway.......

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-20-2006, 06:19 PM
Regarding this article
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39238000/jpg/_39238707_mcenroe.jpg

You cannot be SERIOUS!!

Chiefs Express
04-20-2006, 06:52 PM
Regarding this article


You cannot be SERIOUS!!

Contact the author if you have problems with the article.

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret.) USAF

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-20-2006, 07:24 PM
Contact the author if you have problems with the article.

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret.) USAF

I hate to break this to you TC, but world history is chock full of military commanders who are incompetent. Furthermore, this plan is just as shortsighted as the Iraq invasion was. If you can honestly sit there and tell me that Iran and the rest of the muslim world is going to sit idly by while we preemptively attack another Arab state, then you're out of you're f*cking mind. Why don't you wake up and smell what you're shoveling Raiduhs

patteeu
04-20-2006, 07:53 PM
I hate to break this to you TC, but world history is chock full of military commanders who are incompetent. Furthermore, this plan is just as shortsighted as the Iraq invasion was. If you can honestly sit there and tell me that Iran and the rest of the muslim world is going to sit idly by while we preemptively attack another Arab state, then you're out of you're f*cking mind. Why don't you wake up and smell what you're shoveling Raiduhs

Just FYI, Iran isn't an Arab state.

banyon
04-20-2006, 08:18 PM
Just FYI, Iran isn't an Arab state.

Ohhhh, SNAP! :)

Chiefs Express
04-20-2006, 08:23 PM
I hate to break this to you TC, but world history is chock full of military commanders who are incompetent. Furthermore, this plan is just as shortsighted as the Iraq invasion was. If you can honestly sit there and tell me that Iran and the rest of the muslim world is going to sit idly by while we preemptively attack another Arab state, then you're out of you're f*cking mind. Why don't you wake up and smell what you're shoveling Raiduhs

The article cannot be any worse than anything you have posted.

OOPS, my mistake, I forgot to post the one that said Bush did something wrong!

banyon
04-20-2006, 08:57 PM
It's a real shame I can't read this entire thread.

I wonder what I'm missing out on? ROFL

BucEyedPea
04-20-2006, 09:11 PM
Wouldn't you know that the NeoConservative (Trotskytes) would publish this article. These are the SAME people that said Iraq had WMD...in fact somecalled the Iraq invasion the Weekly Standard's war. Not only are these men Trotskytes who savor the idea of permenant revolution (endless warfare through military interventions) but they are also followers of Leo Strauss, are called "Straussians" for their belief in using the "Big Lie" technique, as the people are too stupid to know.


This is the article to read on whether or not to bomb Iran that is analytical and based on reason:Knowing Why Not To Bomb Iran Is Half the Battle (http://forward.com/main/article.php?ref=creveld20060419101) The author Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, is author of "Transformation of War" (Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.

Few excerpted points for those who don't read it:

The U.S. gov't has demonized every nation that was about to go nuclear. U.S. put them under pressure and sanctioned them. Even our own allies Britain and France in the 1950's...then China and even Israel (limited) in the 1960's got the same treatment. As the record shows, in none of these cases did the pessimists' visions come true. In fact, the opposite followed leading to a demise of large-scale warfare.

For those worried about Iran going nuclear due to Ahmadinejad's rhetoric on Israel, Crevald says should deterrence fail, Jerusalem can quickly turn Tehran into a radioactive desert — a fact of which Iranians are fully aware. So this is good read for those concerned.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-20-2006, 09:20 PM
Just FYI, Iran isn't an Arab state.

Are we splitting hairs here?? Ahem, Persian. If that's the best you can come up with as a rebuttal, then nice work :clap:

banyon
04-20-2006, 09:40 PM
Wouldn't you know that the NeoConservative (Trotskytes) would publish this article. These are the SAME people that said Iraq had WMD...in fact somecalled the Iraq invasion the Weekly Standard's war. Not only are these men Trotskytes who savor the idea of permenant revolution (endless warfare through military interventions) but they are also followers of Leo Strauss, are called "Straussians" for their belief in using the "Big Lie" technique, as the people are too stupid to know.


This is the article to read on whether or not to bomb Iran that is analytical and based on reason:Knowing Why Not To Bomb Iran Is Half the Battle (http://forward.com/main/article.php?ref=creveld20060419101) The author Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, is author of "Transformation of War" (Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.

Few excerpted points for those who don't read it:

The U.S. gov't has demonized every nation that was about to go nuclear. U.S. put them under pressure and sanctioned them. Even our own allies Britain and France in the 1950's...then China and even Israel (limited) in the 1960's got the same treatment. As the record shows, in none of these cases did the pessimists' visions come true. In fact, the opposite followed leading to a demise of large-scale warfare.

For those worried about Iran going nuclear due to Ahmadinejad's rhetoric on Israel, Crevald says should deterrence fail, Jerusalem can quickly turn Tehran into a radioactive desert — a fact of which Iranians are fully aware. So this is good read for those concerned.

the Creveld was a good read.

Agree mostly, with the caveat that he presumes that governments are for the most part rational actors. Reminds me of some of the precepts of game theory. But, as we know from records of 1962, sometimes states do not act perfectly rationally and are captive to the delusions or paranoia of key government figures.

certainly Ahmadinejad's recent threats to "blow Israel off the map" do not help matters.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2006, 09:44 PM
I think Ahmadinejad is just rhetoric to match Cheny Administration's belligerent talk...also must feel surrounded with us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ugly Duck
04-21-2006, 01:07 AM
ROFL

I think trying to ignite revolution over there may be a better way to go.Yeah. Attacking Iran would only fuel patriotism that would legitimize their WackyBoy leader. He ain't too popular now, but he would be real quick if we attack Iran. We kin fergit revolution there if'n we bomb 'em. 9/11 brought Bushron to a 90% approval rating here at home. We don't wanna do the same for WackyBoy.

patteeu
04-21-2006, 06:47 AM
Wouldn't you know that the NeoConservative (Trotskytes) would publish this article. These are the SAME people that said Iraq had WMD...in fact somecalled the Iraq invasion the Weekly Standard's war.

The people who said Iraq had WMD included the US intelligence agencies, the Clinton administration, various governments around the world, Hans Blix, Saddam's Generals, and almost everyone else. There were dissenters, but they were in a tiny minority.

patteeu
04-21-2006, 06:49 AM
Are we splitting hairs here?? Ahem, Persian. If that's the best you can come up with as a rebuttal, then nice work :clap:

Not splitting hairs nor trying to rebut, just being accurate. A simple "thank you" would have sufficed.

Adept Havelock
04-21-2006, 06:59 AM
Yeah. Attacking Iran would only fuel patriotism that would legitimize their WackyBoy leader. He ain't too popular now, but he would be real quick if we attack Iran. We kin fergit revolution there if'n we bomb 'em. 9/11 brought Bushron to a 90% approval rating here at home. We don't wanna do the same for WackyBoy.

Good point. An attack would only give "WackyBoy" a cause célèbre to rally his people around. Right now, he's not too popular with the youth, and other segments of that society. Feed those flames (covertly, if at all possible). As Big Daddy said, formenting revolution might just be the best path.

patteeu
04-21-2006, 07:29 AM
This is the article to read on whether or not to bomb Iran that is analytical and based on reason:Knowing Why Not To Bomb Iran Is Half the Battle (http://forward.com/main/article.php?ref=creveld20060419101) The author Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, is author of "Transformation of War" (Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.

Ha, I really liked the opening and closing paragraphs of Crevald's article. That was clever.

I think he makes a bunch of really good points. I don't see how the US can go alone against Iraq with all the uncertainties and the liklihood of unintended consequences (especially in terms of reactions inside Iran and throughout the region/world). I'm not sold on letting Iran go nuclear and relying on MAD because I think it would allow Iran to step up their interference in the region without fear of reprisal, but unless there is buy-in from Arab countries and Europe at a minimum, our hands may be tied.

memyselfI
04-21-2006, 07:37 AM
I hate to break this to you TC, but world history is chock full of military commanders who are incompetent. Furthermore, this plan is just as shortsighted as the Iraq invasion was. If you can honestly sit there and tell me that Iran and the rest of the muslim world is going to sit idly by while we preemptively attack another Arab state, then you're out of you're f*cking mind. Why don't you wake up and smell what you're shoveling Raiduhs


You are spot on with your assessment except for the fact that Arabs could care less if the Iranians were attacked on the basis of their ethnic origins. In actuality, they'd probably rather enjoy the spectacle. It's that the Iranians are Muslims that seals the deal and makes any attack on another MUSLIM STATE extremely dangerous and wreckless.

I argued almost four years ago that this scenario was the EXACT reason why we could/should not arbritrarily attack invade Iraq after Afghanistan. The more US boots seen in that part of the world the more it looks like they are trying to take over thereby further radicalizing already radical elements and, more dangerously, MAINSTREAMING fanaticism for the masses. I've argued this country was safer on 9/10/01 than we are right now and it's for this very reason....

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 08:05 AM
I hate to break this to you TC, but world history is chock full of military commanders who are incompetent. Furthermore, this plan is just as shortsighted as the Iraq invasion was. If you can honestly sit there and tell me that Iran and the rest of the muslim world is going to sit idly by while we preemptively attack another Arab state, then you're out of you're f*cking mind. Why don't you wake up and smell what you're shoveling.

Your basic premise seems to be that any retired general that advocates anything other than to demonize President Bush is incompetent. It's a sad state of affairs that someone would stoop that low to attempt to prove their stance.

I don't actually care if we do anything with Iran. I do care that if we leave Iraq at the wrong time that we will be damaged in ways that you probably would not consider or even comprehend.

As for your comment about what I'm shoveling; if you would use the link provided you will see that I didn't write one word of the article so I'm not the one doing the shoveling, but to bring your anti-Bush rhetoric to light you seem to have several scoop shovels full of it on your own.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2006, 09:30 AM
The people who said Iraq had WMD included the US intelligence agencies, the Clinton administration, various governments around the world, Hans Blix, Saddam's Generals, and almost everyone else. There were dissenters, but they were in a tiny minority.


That just goes to show how collective thought agreement is not always correct.
The NeoCons are in both political parties...they just dominate more under Bush.
Clinton wouldn't do what they wanted...invade for regime change which these NeoCons wanted since 1998.

The thing is Iraq never had a missile delivery system for the weapons anyway, if he even had them. And SH never even used them on Israel before or in PGWI...because he was threatened with nuclear annhilation if he did.This shows that even if he had them he was containable. The man may have been evil but he was a survivor.

The dissenters were correct but there were more than just a few lone ones.
I understand that there were a lot more in the CIA that did not agree either. There is one person who said he didn't have them, a lone wolf, vilified and smeared....Scott Ritter. Yet, he turned out to be correct. SH was officially cleared as well by 1992. Post invasion, SH's head of WMD was even on Fox saying they got rid of them but that SH was a paranoid man. So SH's behavior did help his situation. I think it was more SH's behavior that led most to believe he had s/g to hide. But that's was just circumstantial.

Also, in Scott Ritter's book about the inspections....Guess what?
Our CIA was trying to wage a coup against him during the inspections. Yes this was happening under Clinton and SH and his top security people knew it.

We are NEVER told the whole truth. No matter who is in power.

patteeu
04-21-2006, 10:08 AM
That just goes to show how collective thought agreement is not always correct.
The NeoCons are in both political parties...they just dominate more under Bush.
Clinton wouldn't do what they wanted...invade for regime change which these NeoCons wanted since 1998.

The thing is Iraq never had a missile delivery system for the weapons anyway, if he even had them. And SH never even used them on Israel before or in PGWI...because he was threatened with nuclear annhilation if he did.This shows that even if he had them he was containable. The man may have been evil but he was a survivor.

The dissenters were correct but there were more than just a few lone ones.
I understand that there were a lot more in the CIA that did not agree either. There is one person who said he didn't have them, a lone wolf, vilified and smeared....Scott Ritter. Yet, he turned out to be correct. SH was officially cleared as well by 1992. Post invasion, SH's head of WMD was even on Fox saying they got rid of them but that SH was a paranoid man. So SH's behavior did help his situation. I think it was more SH's behavior that led most to believe he had s/g to hide. But that's was just circumstantial.

Also, in Scott Ritter's book about the inspections....Guess what?
Our CIA was trying to wage a coup against him during the inspections. Yes this was happening under Clinton and SH and his top security people knew it.

We are NEVER told the whole truth. No matter who is in power.


BTW, I made a mistake in that post. I said that all those people "said" Saddam had WMD and included Hans Blix in my list. Wrt Hans Blix, I should have just said he believed Saddam had WMD because he never, as far as I know, actually said he had them, he just said he suspected that they would be found as a result of the invasion.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 10:11 AM
BTW, I made a mistake in that post. I said that all those people "said" Saddam had WMD and included Hans Blix in my list. Wrt Hans Blix, I should have just said he believed Saddam had WMD because he never, as far as I know, actually said he had them, he just said he suspected that they would be found as a result of the invasion.

And they would have been if they hadn't been trucked out of the country.
JMO BTW.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2006, 10:54 AM
And they would have been if they hadn't been trucked out of the country.
JMO BTW.

I'm glad you were intellectually honest to add "JMO"...since Colin Powell has officially stated that there is no hard evidence of this either. Even those trailers were not found to be what was claimed.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 10:56 AM
I'm glad you were intellectually honest to add "JMO"...since Colin Powell has officially stated that there is no hard evidence of this either. Even those trailers were not found to be what was claimed.

At the time he was SofS that was the line. He has been away from the office for some time now. At this point in time his opinion is no better or no worse than anyone else.

We all have our opinion.

IF WMD's are located, will the liberals back off of their rants? I seriously doubt it. When faced with facts they will fall back on fiction almost every time.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2006, 11:11 AM
At the time he was SofS that was the line. He has been away from the office for some time now. At this point in time his opinion is no better or no worse than anyone else.

We all have our opinion.

IF WMD's are located, will the liberals back off of their rants? I seriously doubt it. When faced with facts they will fall back on fiction almost every time.


Ya' know I am a conservative/libertarian and registered as a Republican....but the Left is right about this one. More facts support their side on this. Take the partisan blinders off. The right is going to bring this country down trying to be right.

As far as Colin Powell being out of the picture...that was not just his "personal" opinion...that was an official gov't statement.

This is not an opinion based idea it is in the realm of fact...he either had them or he did not. Opinion is whether something is good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly or a conclusion we may draw from a set of facts. This is a case where not the conclusion, but the facts are in dispute.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 11:42 AM
Ya' know I am a conservative/libertarian and registered as a Republican....but the Left is right about this one. More facts support their side on this. Take the partisan blinders off. The right is going to bring this country down trying to be right.

As far as Colin Powell being out of the picture...that was not just his "personal" opinion...that was an official gov't statement.

This is not an opinion based idea it is in the realm of fact...he either had them or he did not. Opinion is whether something is good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly or a conclusion we may draw from a set of facts. This is a case where not the conclusion, but the facts are in dispute.

What part of the officail government is Colin Powell currently holding?

BucEyedPea
04-21-2006, 01:11 PM
I believe he made the statement when he was.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 01:38 PM
I believe he made the statement when he was.

So you admit that he has no current information relating to the presence or non presence of WMD's?

If you would remember, the Iraqi's hid no less than three MIGs in the sand and unless a sharp eyed Marine had of missed it they would have been missed by all. The MIG's were protected and burried in the sand for later use. If a fighter can be hidden and overlooked for a long period what makes you think that something 1/8th the size of a MIG could not be hidden?

There are people in Texas that have assult weapons buried in their fields and mapped out by GPS for future retrieval. Don't be so naive that you can't consider that Iraq might have hidden away some of their weapons for future use. Remember that the first Gulf War only lasted a short time, they may have considered that we wouldn't be there that long and their weapons would be accessible.

This is all specualtion based on the found MIG's, but it doesn't seem too far from feasible.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2006, 01:53 PM
No I admit to nothing where you put words in my mouth.

The US gov't has officially given up looking for WMD as of December 2004 and also said around that time there is NO hard evidence for them having been moved. That is simply the official stand.

When you come up with new and real "evidence" then I'll examine that then. Other than that, this is nothing but conjecture, speculation, wishful thinking....or more along the lines of "belief" or delusion. "Busheviks" are in this camp.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 02:07 PM
No I admit to nothing where you put words in my mouth.

The US gov't has officially given up looking for WMD as of December 2004 and also said around that time there is NO hard evidence for them having been moved. That is simply the official stand.

When you come up with new and real "evidence" then I'll examine that then. Other than that, this is nothing but conjecture, speculation, wishful thinking....or more along the lines of "belief" or delusion. "Busheviks" are in this camp.

How about a link to your belief that the gov. has given up looking for WMD's.

If you don't have a link, where do you get your inside information?

BucEyedPea
04-21-2006, 02:40 PM
That's not inside information. I posted that over a year ago somewhere and don't know if the link still exists. You'll have to do your own research on it. Sorry.

banyon
04-21-2006, 03:08 PM
That's not inside information. I posted that over a year ago somewhere and don't know if the link still exists. You'll have to do your own research on it. Sorry.

I'm not sure what you are arguing about with CE,
since I currently have him on iggy, but I assure you
that it will be an entirely fruitless endeavor.

Here's an oldie but goodie:

You realize you are arguing with the intellectual equal of a chimp.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 03:10 PM
I'm not sure what you are arguing about with CE,
since I currently have him on iggy, but I assure you
that it will be an entirely fruitless endeavor.



Yep, banyon is a flaming coward. He will throw darts at someone with no background on the conversation.

He is a total jerk. I may be bad but at least I have the courage to stand and take what I dish out.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 03:11 PM
That's not inside information. I posted that over a year ago somewhere and don't know if the link still exists. You'll have to do your own research on it. Sorry.

If I were you I'd shy away from telling someone to prove your point for you. Typically you get flammed for doing such things.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2006, 05:57 PM
Sorry but sites don't keep the same articles up for long. Even AP takes theirs down after a couple of days...it's old news.

BTW where's your proof they were moved? :banghead:

Adept Havelock
04-21-2006, 06:43 PM
Here you go, BucEyedPea and CE:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4169107.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169941.stm

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2005/01/12/story184442.asp

One is glad to be of service.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2006, 09:20 PM
Why thank you for your service kind sir!

I did try to rush a search and I got the Gaurdian but I figured it'd be accused of being a liberal source....eventhough it's offical per US gov't. Guess the Weekly Standard won't print it.

Adept Havelock
04-21-2006, 10:31 PM
Why thank you for your service kind sir!

I did try to rush a search and I got the Gaurdian but I figured it'd be accused of being a liberal source....eventhough it's offical per US gov't. Guess the Weekly Standard won't print it.

For international news, I pretty much gave up on the US media years ago. The Beeb is great! Try the BBC World Service (most NPR stations carry it at night).

In all fairness, the Guardian does lean pretty hard to the left. For daily news, I highly recommend the venerable old Thunderer.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/global/

Between the Times and the WSJ (minus it's op-ed department, but that's just me), I think they might be the only real traditional newspapers left that are worth reading daily. Of course, I still get the KC Star too, just for the sports pages, some local news, and my daily dose of the comics.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2006, 10:42 PM
Yeah, the Guardian does lean left. It's just what came up in my search.

BBC is okay, I don't read it much, but I thought it was liberal.
I like it's entertainment.

Times also leans left...but even they had Judith Miller who was one of the Busheviks embedded journalists to promote the Iraq invasion. They apologized for that though.

The WSJ's op-ed department fired and cleaned out it's staff, even of traditional conservatives, who were against going into Iraq. Ivan Leland of the Independent Institute who is excellent on foreign policy...very analytical and rational was condemned. It's all NeoCons now.

I have read or watched hardly any news, unless provided in links, from my trusted and favored sites. But the Weekly Standard!!! That is all hard NeoConservative. Some onservatives haven't figured out that NC is not traditional conservativism.