|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:41 am Post subject: Patriotism rears it's ugly head. |
|
|
It's about damned time someone with some power acted in the best interests of the country.
US generals �will quit� if Bush orders Iran attack
Quote: |
SOME of America�s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
...The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
�There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,� a source with close ties to British intelligence said. �There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.�
...Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
...A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: �The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.�
But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was �zero chance� of a war with Iran....
...Pace�s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government�s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was �far from clear�.
...Hillary Mann, the National Security Council�s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace�s repudiation of the administration�s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.
�He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,� she said. �It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.�
...The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.
...The panel initially focused on destroying Iran�s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been instructed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq.
However, army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war... |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
English_Ocean

Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Location: You don't have the right to abuse me!
|
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can hardly wait, but I doubt if there will be a U.S. against Iran, not because Iran doesn't deserve it, but more likely because the U.S. will probably not gather enough international support, or support at home, and getting approval from Congress would be highly unlikely.
Why worry about Iraq in the first place? If there really was a threat, Israel has no problem dealing with Iran. I think this is just a time for a few silly boys to talk tough after a not a very successful military campaign in Iraq. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does God want Bush to attack Iran too? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Teufelswacht
Joined: 06 Sep 2004 Location: Land Of The Not Quite Right
|
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
supernick wrote: |
I can hardly wait, but I doubt if there will be a U.S. against Iran, not because Iran doesn't deserve it, but more likely because the U.S. will probably not gather enough international support, or support at home, and getting approval from Congress would be highly unlikely.
Why worry about Iraq in the first place? If there really was a threat, Israel has no problem dealing with Iran. I think this is just a time for a few silly boys to talk tough after a not a very successful military campaign in Iraq. |
Questions about the vague "sourcing" of the story aside, I have to agree with Supernick. It appears that a few "commanders (?)" are just venting their frustration with the stupidity of their masters in D.C. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Teufelswacht wrote: |
supernick wrote: |
I can hardly wait, but I doubt if there will be a U.S. against Iran, not because Iran doesn't deserve it, but more likely because the U.S. will probably not gather enough international support, or support at home, and getting approval from Congress would be highly unlikely.
Why worry about Iraq in the first place? If there really was a threat, Israel has no problem dealing with Iran. I think this is just a time for a few silly boys to talk tough after a not a very successful military campaign in Iraq. |
Questions about the vague "sourcing" of the story aside, I have to agree with Supernick. It appears that a few "commanders (?)" are just venting their frustration with the stupidity of their masters in D.C. |
There are a lot of generals and admirals in the American military. Anyone who makes the rank of general could be called "senior". If it was someone on the Joint Chiefs that would be something. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
You can relax EFLTrainer, otherwise known as Mr. Leftie.
It's Israel who will launch the massive aerial assault if necessary when the time comes. You and Nowhere Man should get together and plan strategy before you post another foreign policy thread.
By the way, nothing wrong with patriotism unless of course you're ashamed of your country. Jingoism is another matter but I do believe the sabre-rattling is coming from Tehran, buddy. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
In ancient Rome, you were not supposed to be reckless with the armies of Rome. Bush has been reckless with the armies of the Republic. It is not the administration that must fight the war, it is not the administration that will pay the massive debt that will result and they won't lose sleep over the dead plebian soldiers while they are scheming for their clique of patricians rather than focusing on the larger, long-term good. Bush seems to have learned something and he has included Baker's ideas. If so, I think Bush is just posturing and preparing for a possible plan and there is nothing wrong with that, but considering how the attack on Iraq was botched, the generals don't want to go after a bigger fish. As far as Israel, the installations Iran has are more protected than what the Iraqis have. It is not like with Osirak in Iraq and the Israelis know this, but they would strike possibly if they thought Iran was very close to a weapon. Iran is away from a weapon. I haven't heard of any intelligence that says Iran is close to having a weapon, but they are enriching uranium which can get them closer and closer to that goal.
I think there is another weapon to use against Iran not having any country import their oil. The gulf states are angry with Iran. Iran is vulnerable from different areas so a reckless attack may not be necessary as the generals are saying. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mnhnhyouh

Joined: 21 Nov 2006 Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just a quick note about how those living in Iran might be feeling. Consider their neighbours.
Iraq, taken over by the U.S.
Turkey, a member of Nato and a close friend.
Afghanistan, large U.S. troop deployment.
Pakistan, a military dictator, strongly supported by the U.S.
only Turkmenistan has no U.S. troops, though it seems, from a quick search, they would like to put some there.
They would be feeling a little surrounded, and feel very justified at getting about the only thing that would protect them, nuclear weapons.
h |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mnhnhyouh wrote: |
They would be feeling a little surrounded, and feel very justified at getting about the only thing that would protect them, nuclear weapons.
h |
Now you done it. The Dave's ESL neocons who can't actually go fight the wars they support will brand you a lefty. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mnhnhyouh

Joined: 21 Nov 2006 Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am left handed in most things, playing pool, tennis, writing, wanking. I guess the label fits
Or were you alluding to my use of fact in argument?
and could there be more contrast in our avatars?
h |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm more worried about former Soviet nuclear material, and where it could end up, than I am with Iran making a bomb.
I think Iran's government may be loopy on the surface, but I doubt they're ready to stir up something everyone involved knows they won't be able to finish. At least not in this millenium.
Iran also isn't down with Wahhabism/Sunni extremism. Another reason I'm less concerned about them than other factions.
Stay on target, for chrissakes. And IF Israel is going after Iran's nuke facilities, I would hope the US would start distancing themselves from that shite right now. But I won't hold my breath for that to happen, and we'll (rightly or wrongly) be lumped in again with whatever actions Tel Aviv takes. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Adventurer:
Quote: |
I think there is another weapon to use against Iran not having any country import their oil. The gulf states are angry with Iran. Iran is vulnerable from different areas so a reckless attack may not be necessary as the generals are saying. |
Valid point and one often overlooked. UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain must sense Iranian regional ambitions and I don't think it's going to be compatible with their westernization schemes. The mainstream media tends to overlook this point, too, because they'd rather make the Iranian policy appear to be a legitimate reaction to American hegemony.
Errol Flynn:
I don't mind being lumped in with Israel. The worst Israeli government is superior to the best Arab government any day. And I have all the faith in the world in the Israeli Air Force to pinpoint the necessary targets. Any other country so directly threatened would do no less.
mindmetoo:
Better to be a neocon than a neocom. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemcgarrett wrote: |
You can relax EFLTrainer, otherwise known as Mr. Leftie.
It's Israel who will launch the massive aerial assault if necessary when the time comes. You and Nowhere Man should get together and plan strategy before you post another foreign policy thread.
By the way, nothing wrong with patriotism unless of course you're ashamed of your country. Jingoism is another matter but I do believe the sabre-rattling is coming from Tehran, buddy. |
My post wasn't about Iran, but thanks for playing. And patriotism? Something wrong with it? Surely not. But you've shown zero understanding of patriotism on this board, so why do you consider yourself qualified to speak on the subject?
Just who is it you're a sock for, stevie? Goopher? One of the other resident anti-patriots? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EFLTrainer:
Now that you've changed your avatar, you don't have much redeeming value to your posts.
Quote: |
My post wasn't about Iran, but thanks for playing. And patriotism? Something wrong with it? |
First off, I didn't address you directly. Second, the article you posted is making reference to Iran. Third, what specifically leads you to infer that I'm anti-patriotic? I've even had a thread or two on the subject.
Need to get a grip, bruddah. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|