Nuking Iran part two......

[FOTD]

Gen. Petraeus named as next commander of Mideast command
By ANNE FLAHERTY – 2 hours ago
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hcWJu9bbzrJZ7uNHjvMn0BuTGqHQD907KV100
WASHINGTON (AP) — Gen. David Petraeus, the four-star general whose led troops in Iraq for the past year, has been tapped to become the next commander of U.S. Central Command, according to an official familiar with the decision.

If confirmed by the Senate, he would replace Navy Adm. William Fallon, who abruptly stepped down in March after a magazine reported that he was at odds with President Bush over Iran policy. Fallon said the report had become a distraction.

Taking Petraeus' position as the senior commander in Iraq would be Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, who had until recently been serving as Petraeus' deputy.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

Petraeus, 55, is widely hailed by the Bush administration and members of Congress for developing and implementing a new strategy in Iraq, including the deployment of some 30,000 additional troops, that dramatically improved security.


Bush and Cheney forced Out Admiral Fallon as head of CENTCOM because he opposed nuking Iran. Now Bush and Cheney put their Yes Man, Petraeus, in as CENTCOM head so they can attack Iran and say that it was a decision by the head of CENTCOM. Quite a scam they got going there.

[Conan71]

Wow, you cobble the strangest headlines from the news.

[Breadburner]

Anyone have a people sized plastic grocery bag handy there is a turd on the forum that needs disposed of.......

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

Anyone have a people sized plastic grocery bag handy there is a turd on the forum that needs disposed of.......

War might seem like a TV program on CNN to you, but to me, I find it very deserving of scrutiny if the very POSSIBILITY exists.

[FOTD]

It's not about me. Try adressing the real issue here.

Today's WSJ had a front page story on the Israeli's taking out that nuclear reactor in Syria in October. They had the evidence. Meanwhile, Bush plays it down to cozy up to the North Koreans?

The Israeli's need to watchover their own self defense. They do a much better job than the Busheviks.

[cannon_fodder]

we don't even get a link to the article this time, just wholesale cutting and pasting from the AP.  

Seriously, without a wire service subscription posting whole articles even when a link is cited is over the line and really stealing of content.  Wholesale taking the entire article and not providing additional substance nor even a link is even worse.

Is there some policy on whole sale theft of other people's articles?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD


The Israeli's need to watchover their own self defense. They do a much better job than the Busheviks.

I'm confused.  Are you advocating attacking Iran or against it?   We know Iran is in violation of UN agreements to cease the manufacture of nuclear materials, so we get to bomb them now?  

I guess that's a problem with just cutting and pasting other people's articles, you never state your position on the issue.
- - -

YoungTulsans:

The possibility of war exists with almost every country.  Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Pakistan and even a border war with Mexico (Northern Mexico is more controlled by criminals than government at this point).  We have a possibility of war with many, many more countries...

Shall we bring up the possibility of war with each of them every time a commander is moved?  This article had nothing to do with a potential war Iran.  Petreous is needed for the floundering effort in Afghanistan.

[FOTD]

I think the USA should not be marshal of the mid east. It's proven to be a fiasco for our country. Even Ronald Reagan recognized the fallacy.

[cannon_fodder]

We are in agreement on that.

I'd much rather favor involvement and coercion that direct action.  Our best Mideastern successes are without direct action (Egypt & Jordan notably).  But now that we are in this cluster, it's hard to just walk away without destroying our interests and hanging our allies out to dry.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by FOTD


The Israeli's need to watchover their own self defense. They do a much better job than the Busheviks.

CF:

Shall we bring up the possibility of war with each of them every time a commander is moved?  This article had nothing to do with a potential war Iran.  Petreous is needed for the floundering effort in Afghanistan.

I guess some of us are capable of reading between the propaganda lines. Why is Petraeus (you could show some respect and spell his name correctly except when doing a visual pun ie:Betrayus)the right man? He's been a failure on the other front and lied to congress about timetables and benchmarks. Why move him over to Afghanistan?

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

We are in agreement on that.

I'd much rather favor involvement and coercion that direct action.  Our best Mideastern successes are without direct action (Egypt & Jordan notably).  But now that we are in this cluster, it's hard to just walk away without destroying our interests and hanging our allies out to dry.

Allies? HUH?

It will not be hard to run away from Iraq. We lost the oil to Iran. That's the fault of lousy leadership. Time to move on over to peaceful relationships. War did not work. Don't use excuses or ego to keep us entangled and headed to bankruptcy not to mention $150/barrel oil.

[cannon_fodder]

1. Allies:  those who have fought with and died for our troops.

There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's who have allied themselves with US forces.  I have no doubt most of those alliances are outside altruistic goals, but nonetheless they are alies.    You deny this?

2. We lost what oil to Iran?  Iran does not import any Iraqi oil, they are an oil exporter.

3. Iraq has no part in $150 oil.  Iraq exports more oil now than when this cluster started.  

4. War has not worked and the leadership was incompetent.  No argument there.

5. Worrying about American self interests is not an excuse- in fact, it is really the only justifiable reason to fight a war.  At this point, if we walk away most of our world interests will be damaged.

- Our allies in Iraq will suffer
- The entire region would be destabilized.
- Other commitments in the world and future commitments would be doubted (no, we really want your help.  We'll watch out for you, don't worry)
- We get blamed for starting a mess and then walking away (damned if we stay, damned if we go)
- Oil prices will skyrocket as production in Iraq goes down and/or the entire region is destabilized
- Fear of a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia
- Kurdistan would almost certainly go to war with Turkey, a NATO member

One would think stopping those events would be worth something.  Certainly it at leasts raises a areas for debate.  Are those contingencies WORTH stay for?  What alternatives do we have?

and again... this has little to do with Petraeus.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1. Allies:  those who have fought with and died for our troops.

There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's who have allied themselves with US forces.  I have no doubt most of those alliances are outside altruistic goals, but nonetheless they are alies.    You deny this?

2. We lost what oil to Iran?  Iran does not import any Iraqi oil, they are an oil exporter.

3. Iraq has no part in $150 oil.  Iraq exports more oil now than when this cluster started.  

4. War has not worked and the leadership was incompetent.  No argument there.

5. Worrying about American self interests is not an excuse- in fact, it is really the only justifiable reason to fight a war.  At this point, if we walk away most of our world interests will be damaged.

- Our allies in Iraq will suffer
- The entire region would be destabilized.
- Other commitments in the world and future commitments would be doubted (no, we really want your help.  We'll watch out for you, don't worry)
- We get blamed for starting a mess and then walking away (damned if we stay, damned if we go)
- Oil prices will skyrocket as production in Iraq goes down and/or the entire region is destabilized
- Fear of a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia
- Kurdistan would almost certainly go to war with Turkey, a NATO member

One would think stopping those events would be worth something.  Certainly it at leasts raises a areas for debate.  Are those contingencies WORTH stay for?  What alternatives do we have?

and again... this has little to do with Petraeus.

The emphasized point is all you need.  That simple point alone should rule out trusting this regime.  Why argue over little details?  Don't forget the ramifications of such mistakes.  Thousands have died, thousands more are mutiliated, and still thousands more are mentally ill as a result of getting into an unwinnable war.  The bond of trust to this administration should be broken.  We have every right to make sure they don't get away with any more of this corrupt BS.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder
YoungTulsans:

The possibility of war exists with almost every country.  Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Pakistan and even a border war with Mexico (Northern Mexico is more controlled by criminals than government at this point).  We have a possibility of war with many, many more countries...

Shall we bring up the possibility of war with each of them every time a commander is moved?  This article had nothing to do with a potential war Iran.  Petreous is needed for the floundering effort in Afghanistan.

What?  Last time I checked, Mexico and Zimbabwe weren't under plans for attack.  Iran, however, is.  Syria isn't a place I would take a vacation to any time soon either.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:I find it very deserving of scrutiny if the very POSSIBILITY exists.

1) You didn't say "plan to attack," you said possibility.  There is certainly a possibility of military intervention along the Mexican border and in fact, some National Guard troops are already there.  A few rounds shot at them from the other side of the border by the "Mexican Army" (usually on drug payroll in N. Mexico) and it could be trouble.

We are effectively engaged in blockading Zimbabwe as we speak.  The possibility of conflict is not that far removed.

2) If the criteria is "plan to attack," add Canada, France, and Germany to the list.  We have war plans to attack everyone in the world in some capacity.
- - -

Not saying any of those contingents is likely, but you were talking about "possibilities" and those I listed are at the top of the list.