View Full Version : Why aren't we attacking Iran again?
dirk digler
11-14-2006, 12:24 PM
Iran is claiming they are almost fully nuclear and the IAEA has found plutonium in their waste facility.
Plutonium Found in Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111400230_pf.html)
Add to the fact that they are now openly helping AQ with their successor to Bin Laden.
Iran plotting to groom bin Laden's successor (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/14/wiran14.xml)
As I have been saying since before we invaded Iraq I believed Iran and North Korea were our 2 biggest threats. I was wrong about North Korea and IMHO we are very close to war with Iran. If their claims are true Israel will be attacking Iran very soon.
patteeu
11-14-2006, 01:17 PM
How can we possibly consider attacking Iran when our country doesn't even have the stomach to finish the fight in Iraq?
dirk digler
11-14-2006, 01:46 PM
How can we possibly consider attacking Iran when our country doesn't even have the stomach to finish the fight in Iraq?
That is a good question but honestly I don't think we are going to be left with much of a choice.
tiptap
11-14-2006, 01:57 PM
Yes, I beleive the the Sunni believing Al Qaida will want a Shia selected leader. Please.
Actually you want them to get bogged down in a fight in eastern Iraq. Just get out of the way and choose your spots.
It isn't like the Islamic State of Pakistan doesn't already have the bomb. And there are plenty of Islamic fundamentalist in that country including the government ranks.
Let the local prospects take some of the heat and let's get out of the way.
Mr. Kotter
11-14-2006, 02:03 PM
I hope this is a rhetorical question...
dirk digler
11-14-2006, 02:17 PM
I hope this is a rhetorical question...
It's not unfortunately
Cochise
11-14-2006, 02:19 PM
How can we possibly consider attacking Iran when our country doesn't even have the stomach to finish the fight in Iraq?
No kidding.
I don't think the United States has the stomach to finish a fight that isn't a complete blowout anymore.
Hopefully we don't need to be able to do that again.
Mr. Kotter
11-14-2006, 02:42 PM
No kidding.
I don't think the United States has the stomach to finish a fight that isn't a complete blowout anymore.
Hopefully we don't need to be able to do that again.I'm with you. Lock up the borders, and tell the rest of the world to go fugg themselves.
At this point anything short of a nuclear/biological/chemical attack on a major US city, in which there are many tens of thousands of casualities....would not be enough to justify another "war."
God forbid that it happens, but if it happens let's just hope it's a "blue" city.... ;)
Lock up the borders, and tell the rest of the world to go fugg themselves.
:clap:
If it happens, let's just hope it's a "blue" city.... ;)
Nice one. The sad thing is, I'm sure plenty of people share your hopes.
Mr. Kotter
11-14-2006, 02:47 PM
Nice one. The sad thing is, I'm sure plenty of people share your hopes.
I added/edited "God forbid it happens, but if it does...." sentiment, if that makes you feel better.
StcChief
11-14-2006, 03:04 PM
Nice one. The sad thing is, I'm sure plenty of people share your hopes.
Isn't BLUE the definition of any CITY over 200K.
Isn't BLUE the definition of any CITY over 200K.
I don't know why you are asking me that.
Jenson71
11-14-2006, 03:25 PM
I'm with you. Lock up the borders, and tell the rest of the world to go fugg themselves.
I think that's what the rest of the world wants us to do.
tiptap
11-14-2006, 04:20 PM
Can't we just put 3 or 4 trident subs in the Indian ocean and tell the Iranians that if a A-bomb goes off in America Tehran will be lit up.
This notion worked with USSR and they stewed to the dissolution and it took a generation. We wait out the generation again. But we don't need the war. Indeed if we are forced to reduce our oil consumption it reduces the Iranian income by increasing supply relative to demand.
A hot war just expends resources too fast to see change come about.
Adept Havelock
11-14-2006, 05:01 PM
Can't we just put 3 or 4 trident subs in the Indian ocean and tell the Iranians that if a A-bomb goes off in America Tehran will be lit up.
This notion worked with USSR and they stewed to the dissolution and it took a generation. We wait out the generation again. But we don't need the war. Indeed if we are forced to reduce our oil consumption it reduces the Iranian income by increasing supply relative to demand.
A hot war just expends resources too fast to see change come about.
Yes, indeed. Ample historical precedent as well.
Third: It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.
Cochise
11-14-2006, 05:31 PM
Agree with the last two posts.
Mr. Kotter
11-14-2006, 07:19 PM
I think that's what the rest of the world wants us to do.
They wanna fugg us?
I have no doubt about that. That's why we should do it first. :D
Calcountry
11-14-2006, 07:24 PM
That is a good question but honestly I don't think we are going to be left with much of a choice.We might as well bend over and take it. The people have spoken.
Calcountry
11-14-2006, 07:25 PM
Can't we just put 3 or 4 trident subs in the Indian ocean and tell the Iranians that if a A-bomb goes off in America Tehran will be lit up.
This notion worked with USSR and they stewed to the dissolution and it took a generation. We wait out the generation again. But we don't need the war. Indeed if we are forced to reduce our oil consumption it reduces the Iranian income by increasing supply relative to demand.
A hot war just expends resources too fast to see change come about.Please see my Avatar. I have had this since I started here at the planet in 03, which was a lot closer to 9/11.
It gives me great comfort knowing that those bad dudes are lurking arround the world ready for some fireworks.
dirk digler
11-14-2006, 08:21 PM
Like I have stated before we might not have any choice being drawn into another war. If Iran has nukes Israel will attack them and Iran will launch nukes at Israel.
What will the US do, stand by or fight?
go bowe
11-14-2006, 09:24 PM
No kidding.
I don't think the United States has the stomach to finish a fight that isn't a complete blowout anymore.
Hopefully we don't need to be able to do that again.stomach?
maybe i could contribute some of my stomach...
i've got plenty to share... :) :) :)
go bowe
11-14-2006, 09:54 PM
Like I have stated before we might not have any choice being drawn into another war. If Iran has nukes Israel will attack them and Iran will launch nukes at Israel.
What will the US do, stand by or fight?if israel decides to attack the nuclear facilities in iran, iran would certainly try to respond...
but i think israel can take care of herself in any air battles with iran (or anybody else in the region)...
we might not have to take an active role in combat operations to defend israel...
but i don't think the iran has the bomb (yet!)...
once they do, that mullah controlled-government is bat-shit crazy enough to actually use nuclear bombs against israel...
who would then respond with a far greater number of nukes, raining absolute destruction on every iranian city and military facility...
i doubt that pakistan would enter the fray, for fear of being annihilated by the israeli nukes, or even ours if we do get directly involved...
it will be interesting to see what happens over the next 6 - 12 months...
Nightwish
11-14-2006, 10:12 PM
How can we possibly consider attacking Iran when our country doesn't even have the stomach to finish the fight in Iraq?
When are you going to comprehend that our problems in Iraq are due to inept planning, not to the Dems, the Liberals or homeside opponents to the war in general? You've been quite the good little footsoldier for the neocon right, so you can pat yourself on the back for that, but really, you're living in la la land.
'Hamas' Jenkins
11-14-2006, 11:15 PM
Patteeu is like Howard Hughes in the last hour of "The Aviator" at this point.
Just go piss in another jar, you friggin crazy.
patteeu
11-15-2006, 05:50 AM
When are you going to comprehend that our problems in Iraq are due to inept planning, not to the Dems, the Liberals or homeside opponents to the war in general? You've been quite the good little footsoldier for the neocon right, so you can pat yourself on the back for that, but really, you're living in la la land.
I'm not surprised to see you deflecting the blame to others. So tell me, are you in favor of attacking Iran. If so, who should do the planning? And, most importantly, if the going gets tough are you going to squeal for redeployment to Okinawa and Kuwait again?
Ugly Duck
11-15-2006, 05:53 AM
Why aren't we attacking Iran again?
I think we're going to free the Darfurian people first & install democracy there. Then we'll take on Iran's WMDs.
Amnorix
11-15-2006, 06:08 AM
God forbid that it happens, but if it happens let's just hope it's a "blue" city.... ;)
Even with a wink, to even think this is vile, IMHO.
Radar Chief
11-15-2006, 07:22 AM
When are you going to comprehend that our problems in Iraq are due to inept planning, not to the Dems, the Liberals or homeside opponents to the war in general? You've been quite the good little footsoldier for the neocon right, so you can pat yourself on the back for that, but really, you're living in la la land.
Patteeu is like Howard Hughes in the last hour of "The Aviator" at this point.
Just go piss in another jar, you friggin crazy.
The Almighty says don’t change the subject; just answer the fook’n question.
:shrug:
Mr. Kotter
11-15-2006, 09:12 AM
Even with a wink, to even think this is vile, IMHO.
You've said some things I find vile. Guess we are even. :shrug:
;)
dirk digler
11-15-2006, 10:32 AM
if israel decides to attack the nuclear facilities in iran, iran would certainly try to respond...
but i think israel can take care of herself in any air battles with iran (or anybody else in the region)...
we might not have to take an active role in combat operations to defend israel...
but i don't think the iran has the bomb (yet!)...
once they do, that mullah controlled-government is bat-shit crazy enough to actually use nuclear bombs against israel...
who would then respond with a far greater number of nukes, raining absolute destruction on every iranian city and military facility...
i doubt that pakistan would enter the fray, for fear of being annihilated by the israeli nukes, or even ours if we do get directly involved...
it will be interesting to see what happens over the next 6 - 12 months...
That sounds reasonable I just don't foresee the US standing by while Iran shoots nukes at Israel.
That sounds reasonable I just don't foresee the US standing by while Iran shoots nukes at Israel.
I never understood why Iran would launch a nuke at Israel. There are many Muslims who live there, both in Israeli and Palestinian territory. Wouldn't they risk killing their own people as well as possibly destroying some of their most sacred landmarks in Jerusalem?
Mr. Kotter
11-15-2006, 10:37 AM
I never understood why Iran would launch a nuke at Israel. There are many Muslims who live there, both in Israeli and Palestinian territory. Wouldn't they risk killing their own people as well as possibly destroying some of their most sacred landmarks in Jerusalem?
Maybe because the guy running Iran is "bat shit crazy" as Zach says--except this guy really is? :shrug:
go bowe
11-15-2006, 10:47 AM
You've said some things I find vile. Guess we are even. :shrug:
;)oh no you don't..
you guys are not even close to even...
you're way way ahead...
way way ahead...
go bowe
11-15-2006, 10:51 AM
:shrug:who's stephen?
dirk digler
11-15-2006, 11:13 AM
Maybe because the guy running Iraq is "bat shit crazy" as Zach says--except this guy really is? :shrug:
Yep the President or whatever the **** he is has a major hard on for destroying Israel.
Cochise
11-15-2006, 11:19 AM
I never understood why Iran would launch a nuke at Israel. There are many Muslims who live there, both in Israeli and Palestinian territory. Wouldn't they risk killing their own people as well as possibly destroying some of their most sacred landmarks in Jerusalem?
Terrorists blow up things in Iraq knowing Muslims will be killed. Any person would conclude that in the WTC attacks, Muslims were likely to be killed.
Obviously, I don't think their mentality prohibits them from killing to achieve whatever end.
Probably speaks volumes that they would be more concerned about destroying the Al-Asqa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock than they would about the number of human lives lost. But I think both of these have been destroyed historically and rebuilt anyways.
Calcountry
11-15-2006, 12:17 PM
Like I have stated before we might not have any choice being drawn into another war. If Iran has nukes Israel will attack them and Iran will launch nukes at Israel.
What will the US do, stand by or fight?We should put a sticky at the top of Chiefs Planet and pray and send well wishes.
Terrorists blow up things in Iraq knowing Muslims will be killed. Any person would conclude that in the WTC attacks, Muslims were likely to be killed.
Obviously, I don't think their mentality prohibits them from killing to achieve whatever end.
Probably speaks volumes that they would be more concerned about destroying the Al-Asqa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock than they would about the number of human lives lost. But I think both of these have been destroyed historically and rebuilt anyways.
Good points.
Radar Chief
11-15-2006, 12:24 PM
who's stephen?
The crazy Irishman from Braveheart.
The Almighty says he can get me out of this mess, but he’s pretty sure you’re fooked.
;)
Calcountry
11-15-2006, 12:26 PM
I never understood why Iran would launch a nuke at Israel. There are many Muslims who live there, both in Israeli and Palestinian territory. Wouldn't they risk killing their own people as well as possibly destroying some of their most sacred landmarks in Jerusalem?That's what you get for thinking.
You assume everyone to be like you, and operate from a rational paradigm. If only you could understand them better, then it would make sense.
I am here to ask, what's to understand? They are nuts, and have no sanity, or compassion for others that are not of the same cloth as they wear?
That's what you get for thinking.
You assume everyone to be like you, and operate from a rational paradigm. If only you could understand them better, then it would make sense.
I am here to ask, what's to understand? They are nuts, and have no sanity, or compassion for others that are not of the same cloth as they wear?
I was just asking a question, and I think Cochise gave a good answer. Believe me, I know how crazy the radicals in Iran can be. Anyone who has read about the Iran/Iraq war, where the Iranians sent young boys across mine fields to clear the way for soldiers knows that they are dangerously crazy.
Nightwish
11-15-2006, 02:23 PM
I'm not surprised to see you deflecting the blame to others.Diverting it to where it belongs? The Dems and Liberals didn't plan the war with too few troops. The Dems and Liberals weren't the ones who ignored experts and analysts when they told them they would need more troops. The Dems and the Liberals weren't the naysayers who poopooed on the idea of having to deal with escalating sectarian violence and insurgency. Yet it is the Dems and Liberals that you would like us to blame for the war going as badly as it has. Tell me again who is diverting the blame?
So tell me, are you in favor of attacking Iran.I wasn't in favor of attacking Iraq. Dems may now be in control of Congress, but they still aren't the ones in control of planning seige and warfare. And as long as it is the same inept buffoons who are in charge of that as were in charge of it with Iraq, then no, I certainly don't favor attacking Iran, a nation that can actually deal us some significant damage beyond picking off troops here and there.
And, most importantly, if the going gets tough are you going to squeal for redeployment to Okinawa and Kuwait again?I didn't squeal for that in the first place. Murtha did. I just had fun correcting you on your misportrayal of Murtha. And you've yet to show how redeployment to Kuwait, or even Okinawa (from where missions into Iraq have already been staged on multiple occasions) would be a bad idea. You've said it would be a bad idea, and hoped we wouldn't ask you for more than that. But you've not given a coherent argument as to why.
StcChief
11-15-2006, 02:25 PM
Iran - Their time will come.
I just read this interesting article written by a retired Lt. Col. who was recently published in American Conservative. This expert is from MilitaryWeek.com and was written before Rumsfeld's resignation:
"But Rumsfeld is not only challenging the Army's comfort zone in terms of doctrine and budget share, he is risking the Army real humiliation by over committing it. His current cross border clandestine surveillance operations into Iran, his eagerness to incorporate nuclear technology into the preemptive defense doctrine against Tehran's research facilities and his love for the impersonal and high tech capabilities of massive war from afar are taking us into unchartered territory.
Because the Army and Marines study history, and history indicates that if increased hell is unleashed in Iran, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, it won't be pretty. It will mean more American deaths, and some serious hurt on our Iraqi deployed ground forces, currently the lowest strength and most over extended we've fielded in decades.
They do not call for Rumsfeld's resignation, as Charles Krauthammer hysterically scribbles, because they disagree with Rumsfeld's style, his boss's program for Iraq, or because they are un-American. They call for Rumsfeld's resignation because they see it as the only tactic available to them to stop the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld tsunami of war aimed at Iran.
The significance of General Batiste in this group cannot be missed. He served directly on the staff of former Deputy Defense Secretary and Iraq war advocate Paul Wolfowitz. He saw the dirt and ugliness in the Pentagon E-Ring in the run-up and early years of war in Iraq. He got to know the personalities, the ideology and the planning those personalities and ideologies produced. He earned his command of the Big Red One by working for this crowd, and got to see that the old garbage-in/garbage-out rule of computers also applies to war planning.
If Rumsfeld retires, we will not “do' Iran under Bush 43. Rumfeld's overwhelmingly silent support comes from idle Air Force and Naval commanders who understand that they'll never find a better sandbox than southern Iran for using their sub-launched, nuclear-tipped toys that would validate the Navy's newest class of submarines at $3 billion each. Picture Air Force B-2 stealth bombers at $2.2 billion per copy escorted by F/A-22 Raptors at $340 million per laying waste to Iran It is a game they'd like to play for a long time. Those service budgets rise, and ground force budgets – naturally smaller, more human in scale – will pale in comparison.
Follow the money. Beyond the promotion of a book or two, that's why the ground force generals are speaking out now, and not before this, and why so many others remain silent."
Things might be different now that the events Dirk Digler posted to start this thread have occurred.
Calcountry
11-15-2006, 04:55 PM
I was just asking a question, and I think Cochise gave a good answer. Believe me, I know how crazy the radicals in Iran can be. Anyone who has read about the Iran/Iraq war, where the Iranians sent young boys across mine fields to clear the way for soldiers knows that they are dangerously crazy.To borrow a line from the movie "Untouchables" "What are you prepared to do?"
Calcountry
11-15-2006, 04:58 PM
Diverting it to where it belongs? The Dems and Liberals didn't plan the war with too few troops. The Dems and Liberals weren't the ones who ignored experts and analysts when they told them they would need more troops. The Dems and the Liberals weren't the naysayers who poopooed on the idea of having to deal with escalating sectarian violence and insurgency. Yet it is the Dems and Liberals that you would like us to blame for the war going as badly as it has. Tell me again who is diverting the blame?
I wasn't in favor of attacking Iraq. Dems may now be in control of Congress, but they still aren't the ones in control of planning seige and warfare. And as long as it is the same inept buffoons who are in charge of that as were in charge of it with Iraq, then no, I certainly don't favor attacking Iran, a nation that can actually deal us some significant damage beyond picking off troops here and there.
I didn't squeal for that in the first place. Murtha did. I just had fun correcting you on your misportrayal of Murtha. And you've yet to show how redeployment to Kuwait, or even Okinawa (from where missions into Iraq have already been staged on multiple occasions) would be a bad idea. You've said it would be a bad idea, and hoped we wouldn't ask you for more than that. But you've not given a coherent argument as to why. Bush is a disaster, there is no doubt, because he listened too much to the PC opposition to his war as it was going on.
OOOOO, We better not kill those people, the Democrats will get angry for us killing innocent civilians.
Calcountry
11-15-2006, 05:03 PM
Iran - Their time will come.Ak ma done a job is riding high right now. He won the election, he is the big winner in all of this.
He is now poised to pick up Iraq without firing a shot, the minute we leave. He will have Nukes, and control of all of the oil that flows through the strait of Hormuz. Oh yeah, that includes Saudi Arabia and the Ras Tanura facility.
Remember how Sadam wanted to take over Kuwait? How a threat it was to have an enemy be in position to threaten Saudi Arabia?
Remember that, my fellow Democrats?
What are you going to propose we do about all that?
Nightwish
11-15-2006, 05:15 PM
Bush is a disaster, there is no doubt, because he listened too much to the PC opposition to his war as it was going on.
OOOOO, We better not kill those people, the Democrats will get angry for us killing innocent civilians.Bush is a disaster for many reasons, but you have to be pretty out of touch with reality to think that it was because he listened too much to the opponents of the war. There has been no shortage of civilian deaths in this engagement, and I'm not talking about the civilians killed by sectarian violence or the insurgency, I'm talking about civilians killed by our military actions. So don't even try to say that our failures in Iraq are because we've been too unwilling to kill civilians. The only people Bush listened "too much to" are those who said wmd's were a slam dunk, who said "we know where they are, they're north and south and east and west of Baghdad," who said, "I'll fire the next person who says anything about needing more troops," who said that insurgency would not be a problem, who said this will not be a long, drawn-out, protracted war. He didn't listen closely enough to his own military leaders, tacticians and analysts who told him more troops would be needed, that there was a good chance we would have to deal with an insurgency, and so on. No matter how desperately you, pat, and others try to spin the disaster in Iraq as though it were the fault of the PC opposition, the very real fact remains that the vast, vast, vast, vast lion's share of the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and the inept crew they surrounded themselves with to plan the war.
Calcountry
11-15-2006, 05:24 PM
Bush is a disaster for many reasons, but you have to be pretty out of touch with reality to think that it was because he listened too much to the opponents of the war. There has been no shortage of civilian deaths in this engagement, and I'm not talking about the civilians killed by sectarian violence or the insurgency, I'm talking about civilians killed by our military actions. So don't even try to say that our failures in Iraq are because we've been too unwilling to kill civilians. The only people Bush listened "too much to" are those who said wmd's were a slam dunk, who said "we know where they are, they're north and south and east and west of Baghdad," who said, "I'll fire the next person who says anything about needing more troops," who said that insurgency would not be a problem, who said this will not be a long, drawn-out, protracted war. He didn't listen closely enough to his own military leaders, tacticians and analysts who told him more troops would be needed, that there was a good chance we would have to deal with an insurgency, and so on. No matter how desperately you, pat, and others try to spin the disaster in Iraq as though it were the fault of the PC opposition, the very real fact remains that the vast, vast, vast, vast lion's share of the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and the inept crew they surrounded themselves with to plan the war.Fine, then since your such a fuggin expert, let us now have your plan, hingsight, on how the war OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FOUGHT?
Rather, what should we do now? I have been asking this question from all you experts since the election, and I can't get a straight answer, cause you don't want to go on record as to what a dumbshit you really are.
Nightwish
11-15-2006, 05:44 PM
Fine, then since your such a fuggin expert, let us now have your plan, hingsight, on how the war OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FOUGHT?
Differently than it was. More troops, a plan (any plan at all) to deal with an insurgency, a President who listened to his war advisors instead of one who ignored them. That would be a good start.
Rather, what should we do now? I have been asking this question from all you experts since the election, and I can't get a straight answer, cause you don't want to go on record as to what a dumbshit you really are.
Are you really this dense? Or are you just still grieving, still unable to accept the loss of the election? Kubler-Ross, stage 2, I'd say.
Adept Havelock
11-15-2006, 05:59 PM
Differently than it was. More troops, a plan (any plan at all) to deal with an insurgency, a President who listened to his war advisors instead of one who ignored them. That would be a good start.
Cue obligatory response bemoaning "Monday Morning QB'ing", though they learned this from a 1999 war game.
Are you really this dense? Or are you just still grieving, still unable to accept the loss of the election? Kubler-Ross, stage 2, I'd say.
ROFL ROFL ROFL
The five stages of Memetrader.
patteeu
11-15-2006, 07:56 PM
Diverting it to where it belongs? The Dems and Liberals didn't plan the war with too few troops. The Dems and Liberals weren't the ones who ignored experts and analysts when they told them they would need more troops. The Dems and the Liberals weren't the naysayers who poopooed on the idea of having to deal with escalating sectarian violence and insurgency. Yet it is the Dems and Liberals that you would like us to blame for the war going as badly as it has. Tell me again who is diverting the blame?
I wasn't in favor of attacking Iraq. Dems may now be in control of Congress, but they still aren't the ones in control of planning seige and warfare. And as long as it is the same inept buffoons who are in charge of that as were in charge of it with Iraq, then no, I certainly don't favor attacking Iran, a nation that can actually deal us some significant damage beyond picking off troops here and there.
I didn't squeal for that in the first place. Murtha did. I just had fun correcting you on your misportrayal of Murtha. And you've yet to show how redeployment to Kuwait, or even Okinawa (from where missions into Iraq have already been staged on multiple occasions) would be a bad idea. You've said it would be a bad idea, and hoped we wouldn't ask you for more than that. But you've not given a coherent argument as to why.
Maybe you should ask Generals Casey and Abizad (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16021038.htm) why redeployment to Kuwait and Okinawa would be a bad idea. Or maybe you don't really care what the generals leading this war have to say about it.
Nightwish
11-15-2006, 08:19 PM
Maybe you should ask Generals Casey and Abizad (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16021038.htm) why redeployment to Kuwait and Okinawa would be a bad idea. Or maybe you don't really care what the generals leading this war have to say about it.I'd say the generals leading this war are part of the problem. When it comes to the running of this war, there's a lot of ineptitude to go around, and I have no doubt that some of it falls on their shoulders. So, no, I'm not particularly interested in what they have to say about it. Incidentally, I'm curious why you chose that article to try to make your case. There's not a single word in it about redeployment to Kuwait or Okinawa. There's only a broadly stated opinion that setting a timetable would be a bad idea because it would just the enemy wait us out. But there's nothing about the practicality or lack thereof of a redeployment to Kuwait or Okinawa.
patteeu
11-15-2006, 10:58 PM
I'd say the generals leading this war are part of the problem. When it comes to the running of this war, there's a lot of ineptitude to go around, and I have no doubt that some of it falls on their shoulders. So, no, I'm not particularly interested in what they have to say about it. Incidentally, I'm curious why you chose that article to try to make your case. There's not a single word in it about redeployment to Kuwait or Okinawa. There's only a broadly stated opinion that setting a timetable would be a bad idea because it would just the enemy wait us out. But there's nothing about the practicality or lack thereof of a redeployment to Kuwait or Okinawa.
Neither I nor the Bush administration has argued that a redeployment to Kuwait (or even Okinawa) of some of our forces at some point in the future is impractical. The problem with the Murtha/Nightwish plan is the fact that you want to redeploy before the job is finished in Iraq and you try to tell us that troops in Kuwait and Okinawa will be able to quickly return to Iraq if something happens there that we want to intervene in. That was nonsense the first time it was proposed and it's still nonsense.
Bush, Rumsfeld, patteeu, Abizad, and Casey all think it's too early to withdraw our forces and it's counterproductive to set a timetable.
It's interesting that you now blame the generals that have been running the war. What would you have had Rumsfeld do, ignore his generals?
Radar Chief
11-16-2006, 06:47 AM
Diverting it to where it belongs? The Dems and Liberals didn't plan the war with too few troops. The Dems and Liberals weren't the ones who ignored experts and analysts when they told them they would need more troops. The Dems and the Liberals weren't the naysayers who poopooed on the idea of having to deal with escalating sectarian violence and insurgency. Yet it is the Dems and Liberals that you would like us to blame for the war going as badly as it has. Tell me again who is diverting the blame?
Play the victim much? Pat didn't mentioned blaming a specific group, you did. :shrug:
Maybe that points more towards your need to affix blame than anyone else’s. :hmmm:
stevieray
11-16-2006, 07:05 AM
Or are you just still grieving, still unable to accept the loss of the election?
Are you really this insecure?
Radar Chief
11-16-2006, 07:09 AM
It's interesting that you now blame the generals that have been running the war. What would you have had Rumsfeld do, ignore his generals?
No, just ignore the one’s he doesn’t wanna believe. Apparently he’s fine with the ones that tell’im what’e wants to hear.
Which, if I am recall’n correctly, is what he’s gripe’n ‘bout BushCo Cheneyburtonsfeld for. :hmmm:
Nightwish
11-16-2006, 07:22 AM
Neither I nor the Bush administration has argued that a redeployment to Kuwait (or even Okinawa) of some of our forces at some point in the future is impractical. The problem with the Murtha/Nightwish plan is the fact that you want to redeploy before the job is finished in Iraq and you try to tell us that troops in Kuwait and Okinawa will be able to quickly return to Iraq if something happens there that we want to intervene in. That was nonsense the first time it was proposed and it's still nonsense.
Problem is, missions are already being conducted from both Kuwait and Okinawa, and there haven't seemed to be any problems so far. So much for your "nonsense" theory.
Bush, Rumsfeld, patteeu, Abizad, and Casey all think it's too early to withdraw our forces and it's counterproductive to set a timetable.
That's all fine and dandy. It's also not what we're talking about. You said redeployment to Kuwait and Okinawa (indicating something inherent in those specific areas) was a bad idea. I've asked you why. I'm still waiting for an answer.
It's interesting that you now blame the generals that have been running the war. What would you have had Rumsfeld do, ignore his generals?
Rumsfeld did ignore his generals on several occasions. You already know this. I'm not sure why you're pretending you're unaware of it.
Nightwish
11-16-2006, 07:24 AM
Play the victim much? Pat didn't mentioned blaming a specific group, you did. :shrug:
Read it again. Pat said the blame belongs to the PC opposition to the war. My diatribe about the war planners was a response to that comment. You need to start reading these things from the beginning, not just picking up in the middle with the first post that blips your radar (pun intended). This isn't the first time you've done that.
Nightwish
11-16-2006, 07:25 AM
Are you really this insecure?
Transference?
stevieray
11-16-2006, 07:26 AM
Transference?
you tell me.... I'm not the one who has used the lame ass election line numerous times since last week.
Nightwish
11-16-2006, 07:47 AM
you tell me.... I'm not the one who has used the lame ass election line numerous times since last week.
And?
Earthling
11-16-2006, 07:51 AM
Bush is a disaster for many reasons, but you have to be pretty out of touch with reality to think that it was because he listened too much to the opponents of the war.
Totally agree with this.
patteeu
11-16-2006, 08:14 AM
Read it again. Pat said the blame belongs to the PC opposition to the war. My diatribe about the war planners was a response to that comment. You need to start reading these things from the beginning, not just picking up in the middle with the first post that blips your radar (pun intended). This isn't the first time you've done that.
I think you're the one who needs to read a little more carefully. You seem to be confusing me with bunnytrdr. I'm the black guy waving the American flag, he's the submarine.
patteeu
11-16-2006, 08:31 AM
Problem is, missions are already being conducted from both Kuwait and Okinawa, and there haven't seemed to be any problems so far. So much for your "nonsense" theory.
We've run some missions out of the US during this war, does that mean we can bring all our troops home to the US and continue to control the situation in Iraq? Of course not. You and my 9 yo daughter seem to have about the same level of understanding of how our military operates.
That's all fine and dandy. It's also not what we're talking about. You said redeployment to Kuwait and Okinawa (indicating something inherent in those specific areas) was a bad idea. I've asked you why. I'm still waiting for an answer.
Even my 9 yo can understand that if you have an urgent need for infantry to control a situation on the streets of Baghdad, you can get more troops into position quickly if they come from across town than if they have to be trucked in or airlifted from Kuwait or Okinawa. If we redeploy out of the country, we aren't going back in to do most of the missions we are currently doing.
Rumsfeld did ignore his generals on several occasions. You already know this. I'm not sure why you're pretending you're unaware of it.
I keep hearing this, but when it comes time for examples, all I hear are stories about how a handful of lesser generals are griping in either abstract terms or about how their pet ideas should have been adopted. But when I check what the top generals are saying, they keep indicating that they are getting what they're asking for.
How many generals have resigned in protest? Why are Abizaid and Casey saying the same thing Rumsfeld has been saying even though he's a lame duck now?
Radar Chief
11-16-2006, 09:16 AM
Read it again. Pat said the blame belongs to the PC opposition to the war. My diatribe about the war planners was a response to that comment.
First, your talk’n ‘bout two different posts.
#1. So only Dems and Libs are PC? Is that the inference I’m ‘spose’da gather here?
#2. Your diatribe ‘bout war planners was a response to this post.
Maybe you should ask Generals Casey and Abizad (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16021038.htm) why redeployment to Kuwait and Okinawa would be a bad idea. Or maybe you don't really care what the generals leading this war have to say about it.
In which Pat offered the opinion of Generals do’n the plan’n. You choose to ignore them and listen to the “planners” that are tell’n ya what’cha wanna hear. It’s a common human trait and I don’t blame ya for it, but it looks more than just a little hypocritical that you’re do’n exactly what you’re blame’n BushCo Cheneyburtonfeld for. Again, nothing wrong with it, necessarily, just point’n it out.
You need to start reading these things from the beginning, not just picking up in the middle with the first post that blips your radar (pun intended). This isn't the first time you've done that.
:LOL: You need to quit make’n assumptions as to what I have or haven’t done. This isn’t the first time you’ve done that. :thumb:
Nightwish
11-16-2006, 12:16 PM
We've run some missions out of the US during this war, does that mean we can bring all our troops home to the US and continue to control the situation in Iraq? Of course not.Agreed. And nobody is saying that all the troops should be withdrawn to the furthest practicable staging point. Kuwait is right next door. Even my 9 yo can understand that if you have an urgent need for infantry to control a situation on the streets of Baghdad, you can get more troops into position quickly if they come from across town than if they have to be trucked in or airlifted from Kuwait or Okinawa. If we redeploy out of the country, we aren't going back in to do most of the missions we are currently doing.Does your 9 yo understand better than you apparently do that if we keep a large concentration of soldiers in Iraq, in Baghdad, so that they can step in immediately to crush whatever insurgent action they need to crush, that the Iraqis will never feel the incentive to step up and take over this aspect of their security themselves?I keep hearing this, but when it comes time for examples, all I hear are stories about how a handful of lesser generals are griping in either abstract terms or about how their pet ideas should have been adopted. But when I check what the top generals are saying, they keep indicating that they are getting what they're asking for.You're right. General Franks never told Rumsfeld that he would need 500,000 troops. And when Rumsfeld [never] said no, Franks never requested 400,000 troops. And when Rumsfeld [never] said no, Franks never requested 250,000 troops. And Rumseld never said no to that either (I suppose the other 110,000 must have gone AWOL). And Rumsfeld never said that he would fire the next person who said anything about needing more troops. Whatever, pat.How many generals have resigned in protest?Is resignation the only measure of disagreement with the strategy that you will respect?
Why are Abizaid and Casey saying the same thing Rumsfeld has been saying even though he's a lame duck now?Are they? I'm sure they're in full agreement with him in some regards. Does this mean they are in full agreement in all regards, or that they've never expressed any doubt in any aspect of the war strategy? No, it doesn't, as I'm sure you well know.
Nightwish
11-16-2006, 12:34 PM
First, your talk’n ‘bout two different posts.
#1. So only Dems and Libs are PC? Is that the inference I’m ‘spose’da gather here?
#2. Your diatribe ‘bout war planners was a response to this post.
No, my diatribe about war planner wasn't in response to that post. There was a response to that post, and in that response I included those generals among the larger number of "war planners," in a continuation of my diatribe about the war planners that had been going on for several posts before that.
You need to quit make’n assumptions as to what I have or haven’t done. This isn’t the first time you’ve done that. :thumb:
Okay, I'll allow that you did read the other posts, and just forgot about them.
To remind you of the direction of this particular sidebar, here ya go:
Post #2: How can we possibly consider attacking Iran when our country doesn't even have the stomach to finish the fight in Iraq?
Now, you and I both know what patteeu means by this, because he's said it explicitly so many other times. He means there are too many naysayers to the war, too many people voicing dissent, too many people criticizing the war and the administration, too many voices of dissent "emboldening the enemy" and "demoralizing our troops." In short, too much opposition to this war that patteeu personally approves of, and this opposition is to blame for the mess in Iraq. That is patteeu's position, which he's stated directly on more than one occasion.
Post #24: When are you going to comprehend that our problems in Iraq are due to inept planning, not to the Dems, the Liberals or homeside opponents to the war in general? {in direct response to post #2)
Post #26: I'm not surprised to see you deflecting the blame to others. So tell me, are you in favor of attacking Iran. If so, who should do the planning? And, most importantly, if the going gets tough are you going to squeal for redeployment to Okinawa and Kuwait again? (in direct response to post #24)
Post #43: Diverting it to where it belongs? The Dems and Liberals didn't plan the war with too few troops. The Dems and Liberals weren't the ones who ignored experts and analysts when they told them they would need more troops. The Dems and the Liberals weren't the naysayers who poopooed on the idea of having to deal with escalating sectarian violence and insurgency. Yet it is the Dems and Liberals that you would like us to blame for the war going as badly as it has. Tell me again who is diverting the blame? (in direct response to post #26)
Post #47: Bush is a disaster, there is no doubt, because he listened too much to the PC opposition to his war as it was going on.
OOOOO, We better not kill those people, the Democrats will get angry for us killing innocent civilians. (echoing patteeu in post #2, in direct response to post #43)
Yes, I was mistaken when I said it was patteeu who specified the "PC opposition" as being to blame in this thread. He simply said "our country doesn't have the stomach to finish the fight in Iraq," meaning "the opponents of the war have effectively emasculated the military and forced them to act like bunny rabbits." It was bunnytrdr who specified "PC opposition," though patteeu has said as much in the past, thus it is not unreasonable to extropolate that he meant as much this time. I doubt he's changed his stripes in that regard.
patteeu
11-16-2006, 01:20 PM
Agreed. And nobody is saying that all the troops should be withdrawn to the furthest practicable staging point. Kuwait is right next door.
Similarly, no one was saying that we don't run the occasional mission out of Kuwait or Okinawa. How that is relevant to whether or not we should redeploy all of our troops is beyond me.
Does your 9 yo understand better than you apparently do that if we keep a large concentration of soldiers in Iraq, in Baghdad, so that they can step in immediately to crush whatever insurgent action they need to crush, that the Iraqis will never feel the incentive to step up and take over this aspect of their security themselves?
My 9 yo, General Abizaid, and General Casey all disagree with you.
You're right. General Franks never told Rumsfeld that he would need 500,000 troops. And when Rumsfeld [never] said no, Franks never requested 400,000 troops. And when Rumsfeld [never] said no, Franks never requested 250,000 troops. And Rumseld never said no to that either (I suppose the other 110,000 must have gone AWOL). And Rumsfeld never said that he would fire the next person who said anything about needing more troops. Whatever, pat.
Is resignation the only measure of disagreement with the strategy that you will respect?
Even if the stories about 500k, 400k, 250k are accurate, when plans are made, trade-offs and compromises are inevitable. As long as General Franks was willing to go to war with the final plan, I have to believe he endorsed it. Short of an honorable resignation or a dishonorable public criticism while in uniform, I can't take the second guessing that OTHERS want to apply very seriously. General Franks supported the reelection of Bush in 2004. That's not a very obvious vote of nonconfidence in Secretary Rumsfeld.
Are they? I'm sure they're in full agreement with him in some regards. Does this mean they are in full agreement in all regards, or that they've never expressed any doubt in any aspect of the war strategy? No, it doesn't, as I'm sure you well know.
Yes they are. They had the opportunity to diverge from what Rumsfeld has been saying and they passed it up. They continue to have the opportunity to resign if they disagree or to go public with any disagreement at any time. They haven't shown any inclination to do so. But yet you cling to the possibility that deep down inside they secretly don't believe in the things they are saying because that's what you need to believe. I'm not a psychology expert like yourself, but I'm sure you have a word for that.
patteeu
11-16-2006, 01:23 PM
Yes, I was mistaken when I said it was patteeu who specified the "PC opposition" as being to blame in this thread.
That's really all you had to write. I assume the rest of that blather was intended to bury this admission.
Nightwish
11-16-2006, 01:28 PM
That's really all you had to write. I assume the rest of that blather was intended to bury this admission.
Since what he said is what you've said several times in the past, it's pretty clear that you both meant the same thing, so the disinction isn't terribly important. Rumsfeld and the people who planned the war deserve the lion's share of the blame for the mess Iraq has become. Do the opponents deserve some of the blame? Maybe. But if they do, it pales in comparison to the sheer ineptitude that Rummy and his cohorts have displayed. But you, in your partisan dementia, are unable to even allow that they deserve even a sliver of the blame. Fortunately, the voters of the nation spoke louder than you did.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.