ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums Chat | 0 Users Online   
   
                 04/23/2014 02:05 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Politics
White House Responds to Justin Bieber Deportation Petition
Putin: Obama Would Save Me From Drowning
Tea Party Primary Challenger Says John Boehner Has "Electile Dysfunction"
Louisiana Upholds Ban on Oral Sex
Russia Wants to Take Over the Moon
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should be legally recognized?
  Latest Events
04/22/2014 06:05 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter Dead at 76'
04/22/2014 06:04 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Bomb Threat on Delta Flight'
04/22/2014 06:04 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Lindsay Lohan Reveals She Had Miscarriage'
04/22/2014 06:04 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Man Who Shot Wife While She Was on the Phone With 911 Ate Pot-Infused Candy'
04/22/2014 06:03 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'White House Responds to Justin Bieber Deportation Petition'
04/22/2014 06:02 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Scientists Created Laser That Could Control the Weather'
04/22/2014 06:02 PM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'New Jersey Man Steals Woman´s Dog and TV on First Date'
04/22/2014 06:01 PM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Criminal Arrested After Asking Police If He Should Be Arrested'
04/22/2014 06:00 PM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Girl Captures Black Ring UFO on iPhone'
04/22/2014 06:00 PM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Bust of Romania´s Former First Lady "Too Sexy"'
  4.161 Visits   14 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
02/26/2007 12:00 PM ID: 60546 Permalink   

US Generals May Quit If Bush Orders Iran Invasion

 

According to highly placed defense sources who contacted the The Times, some of America's highest military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran.

A second aircraft carrier arrived near the coast of Iran last week, and US vice president Dick Cheney recently stated that all options, including military action, remained on the table as far as dealing with Iran's nuclear potential is concerned.

Yet one source told the Times that there are "four or five generals and admirals" who would resign if an attack occured, adding, "There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon - a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective."

 
  Source: www.timesonline.co.uk  
    WebReporter: Volkova_Nova Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  107 Comments
  
  Wonders Will Never Cease  
 
Their consciences have woken up at long last That is good news. :)
 
  by: captainJane     02/26/2007 12:57 PM     
  More likely  
 
There already going to be replaced with more Bush loyal ones.
 
  by: Gogevandire   02/26/2007 12:58 PM     
  My take  
 
I'll be "quitting" if we try to go into Iran, too. Unfortunately, not a lot of other people see what's happening here. I know several people who think "Iran needs to be stopped". There's no convincing them otherwise. It's scary.
 
  by: erasedgod   02/26/2007 01:29 PM     
  Keep beating that hornet’s nest Dubya!  
 
You can win this battle, really, you can win this. <rolls eyes>

Great find Volkova.
 
  by: Valkyrie123     02/26/2007 01:36 PM     
  ..mm  
 
GoreVandire is right...

But you can't replace public opinion..you can only manipulate and con them so far.

Iran needs to be talked to and listened to.. not with America pouding at the door saying 'I wanna talk to yuuuu y'hear? Come on out Eeran. It seems to us coalitions that youz has some nuculear weapons..show thems or we are coming on in..'

Very stereotypical.. I'm sorry /cowers

 
  by: mr-anderson   02/26/2007 02:18 PM     
  @mr-anderson  
 
I'm not sure what type of American accent you were trying to caricature there ... if it was "belligerent redneck" it would be, "I woanna towk, y'hear? Come oan out Ah-ran. This here coalition thinks y'all got some nuculear weapons ... show 'em or we're goan come in thayer ..."
But you could also get a pretty good effect with "violent Northeastern mobster-type":
"C'mon, now, I jus' wanna tawk, a'right? Come out, Eye-ran. Some of us out heah think you gotcha self some nuclea weapons. Look, you betta tell us now or weah kickin' the door down!"
 
  by: l´anglais     02/26/2007 03:07 PM     
  "There already going to be replaced..."  
 
Military generals began their career decades before the current president took the oath of office. Their loyalty is not to a president, but to a country and a constitution. While there are generals who agree with the current president, do not forget that they served with the same commitment as majors and colonels during the previous administration.
 
  by: JoeAm   02/26/2007 06:10 PM     
  And thats relevent how?  
 
A general can be replaced and transfered can he not?

Those who support Bush will be moved to posistions of power, those who dont will be sidelined.

Its not a new idea.
 
  by: GogeVandire   02/26/2007 07:24 PM     
  Just goes to show how deep Gump’s hole is  
 
Keep digging Dubya, we’ll be busy building an outhouse up here to cover your hole. Maybe it's time for a military coup since congress has no balls.
 
  by: Valkyrie123     02/26/2007 07:27 PM     
  Go Hide!  
 
I read the comments here and it makes me sad to call myself an American. Most of you are whiny, sniffling, uneducated, ostriches. Keep your head in the sand and all will be good with the world.
Heaven forbid someone actually realize that there are evil people in the world that cannot be reasoned with.
Let's ask Paul M. Johnson Jr, or Nick Berg if they tried to reason with their captors. Oh, that's right, they were beheaded, and their bodies were dumped in the street.
Read your history, there have always been evil people, and some nation that has had to confront them. At this point in history, it's the United States.
Be proud and joyful that the US is here, without us the world would be a very ugly place.
 
  by: FreedonSupporter     02/26/2007 07:35 PM     
  Oh great!  
 
My freedon was needing some support...the chafing was really starting to bother me.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     02/26/2007 07:44 PM     
  @FreedonSupporter: nice name  
 
It's interesting how prejudicial I am. When I saw your 'nickname' I instantly had you pegged in a particular camp.

names like:
FreedomSupporter, CaptainHero, PatriotMan, W00tW00tW00tTestosterone
They all tend to attract a certain type of psyche.

Just ask the 14 year-old Iraqi girl what she asked for while she was being raped and her family were being murdered in the other room.
 
  by: redstain   02/26/2007 07:45 PM     
  Iran wants to destroy the US and Israel.  
 
It wants to dominate and convert the rest of the world.
 
  by: walter3ca   02/26/2007 07:46 PM     
  So the Military Coup in the US will be by the  
 
NeoCons not the generals. Love it.
 
  by: MmmMan     02/26/2007 07:51 PM     
  redstain  
 
Just ask the 14 year-old Iraqi girl what she asked for while she was being raped and her family were being murdered in the other room.

Maybe we should ask all of the Iraqis that were tortured for almost 25 years. How many little girls do think were killed during that time?
Sure there are bad people in the United States, some probably even post here, but all in all the US is here to protect the rest of the world. I really don't think we should do it. Let the rest of the world fend for themselves!
Instantly now I'm a cruel heartless person, so where exactly do we draw the line? Should we help the poor needy people of the world or should we let them fend for themselves?
If you've got all the answers, let's hear your plan for keeping the world at bay, but still help millions of people rid themselves of a cruel dictator.
 
  by: FreedonSupporter     02/26/2007 07:59 PM     
  Southpark (JimboKern) = walter3ca  
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/... (Check his 'Hunting' section)


It reminds me of a Southpark episode where they weren't allowed to shoot animals unless it was self-defense.

So they would shout: "OMG, it's coming right for us!" before blamming it.

I'd be grateful if someone can find a snippet of that to upload it for me.
 
  by: redstain   02/26/2007 08:04 PM     
  @FreedonSupp,: and Oil had nothing to do with it  
 
"Maybe we should ask all of the Iraqis that were tortured for almost 25 years."
That's right, change subject to protecting the 'poor iraqis' (yeah, right http://www.justwartheory.com/... http://youtube.com/... ).
I can hear you squealing 'they'er bad apples' right now. Sorry, I'd give you more arguements to support myself, but I'm laughing too much to google right now.

"If you've got all the answers, let's hear your plan for keeping the world at bay, but still help millions of people rid themselves of a cruel dictator."
Well, I can imagine people laughing and clamouring already. Let me see...
* GET OUT OF IRAQ
* DEAL WITH THE DEFECIT and stop taxing us for your benefit
* INDICT THE DICTATOR AND CHENEY TOO.

Silly Rabbit.
 
  by: redstain   02/26/2007 08:18 PM     
  redstain  
 
But you forgot:
Cure AIDS for the World
Stop Global Warming
Let Gays Marry
Keep Abortion Legal

These are some more of the DemocRAT talking points.

Nancy P wouldn't be very happy with you for neglecting them.
 
  by: FreedonSupporter     02/26/2007 08:24 PM     
  and the Rabbit changes subject again!  
 
AIDS, Global Warming, Gays Marriage, Abortion.
Just one the many songs on the neo-con "I'm losing the arguement but still dodging the issue" album.

I'd tell you to go away, but I'm really having too much fun. I know I'm picking you out and you've only logged in today as a 'new user' but ignorance is no excuse.

Really; it isn't.
 
  by: redstain   02/26/2007 08:31 PM     
  @freedon  
 
Partisan nonsense used to distract from the lack of a good argument? Why, I'm shocked!
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     02/26/2007 08:37 PM     
  @FreeDon  
 
Who's Don?

Everyone doesn't want to cure aids?
Also, I was under the impression most people wanted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
 
  by: Svengali   02/26/2007 08:39 PM     
  red leader says: "keep on target" [star wars]  
 
Remember the subject is:
"US Generals May Quit If Bush Orders Iran Invasion"

We can discuss Gay Marriage, AID, Global Warming and Freedon's inepitude later.
 
  by: redstain   02/26/2007 08:43 PM     
  Annoying Times  
 
It's annoying when they say: "up to five [unnamed] generals threatened to quit."

There's no references to which general or admiral. Too damn vague with all these 'senior' references.
 
  by: redstain   02/26/2007 08:51 PM     
  "And thats relevent how?"  
 
A lawful order is a lawful order, regardless of who is the Commander-in-Chief. These generals, short of sabotaging their own careers, will follow the orders given, even if the orders run opposite of the advice they provide. They either follow the orders or they are relieved of duty. Their allegince isn't to the man, but to the office. It is not accurate to assume that they will all be "Bush's men." They are soldiers. They will follow orders.
 
  by: JoeAm   02/26/2007 08:52 PM     
  redstain  
 
Your right "Generals may quit" is the topic.
But it seems that most of the posts have been about "War bad, Love good".

All I ask is that you admit that there are bad people in the world.

And that those people cannot be reasoned with.

If you can honestly say that everyone in the world can hold hands and sing Kuhmbaya, I understand some of your posts.
 
  by: FreedonSupporter     02/26/2007 09:01 PM     
  It's high time...  
 
we did to Bush as we did to Louis XVI :D
 
  by: Dook   02/26/2007 09:08 PM     
  Hey Troll  
 
"Heaven forbid someone actually realize that there are evil people in the world that cannot be reasoned with."

Interesting that some generals and admirals - seasoned war veterans all, and probably the furthest thing from a "whiny liberal" you could get - happen to feel attacking Iran would be a mistake for a number of reasons. I don't see you criticising them for having the same opinion as the people commenting here - ad hominem attacks hold no water.

"Let's ask Paul M. Johnson Jr, or Nick Berg if they tried to reason with their captors. Oh, that's right, they were beheaded, and their bodies were dumped in the street."

Johnson was killed in Saudi Arabia - a US ally - and Berg was killed in Iraq.

What the hell does this have to do with invading Iran? Can you say "straw man"?

I have a feeling we may have another RushO'Reilly on our hands here. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same person behind this new tard, either.

 
  by: Volkova_Nova     02/26/2007 09:15 PM     
  Volkova_Nova  
 
What does it have to do with it?
You're more obtuse than Redstain.

Evil people exist everywhere. There are evil people in Iran, Iraq, US, Australia, etc.

If someone threatened you and your family with bodily injury, would you:

A. Call the police and hope he doesn't kill you and your family before they arrive.
B. Give that person your money and beg for your life while pissing down your leg.
C. Defend yourself and family.

It's an easy analogy. I would defend myself and family at all costs.

I'm thinking you're more the B person.

If these officers have some how gotten to the rank of General being a B. personality, we've got more to worry about than Iran. We should worry more about Canada taking over.
 
  by: FreedonSupporter     02/26/2007 09:26 PM     
  @Troll  
 
"If these officers have some how gotten to the rank of General being a B. personality, we've got more to worry about than Iran"

Um, cowards don't generally rise to the level of general in the United States.

I'd trust the people who have battle experience more than some anonymous, straw-manning troll over when a good time to go to war is, thanks.

Even for a troll, your stuff is weak.
 
  by: Volkova_Nova     02/26/2007 09:31 PM     
  Please answer the question!!!  
 
I find it interesting that neither Volkova_Nova nor Redstain will admit that there are evil people in the world. They want to dodge the question as most of their type do.
Evil needs to be dealt with.
Do I think that we should invade Iran right now, no. Do I think we should be willing to do whatever it takes to defend the greatest nation on Earth, yes.
I would hope it's simple enough for even someone of your limited capacity to comprehend. I doubt you will, but at least I tried.
 
  by: FreedonSupporter     02/26/2007 09:45 PM     
  @FreeDon  
 
“Be proud and joyful that the US is here, without us the world would be a very ugly place.”

That has to be the single most ignorant and contradictory statement I have read in a long long time.

First the US army is not here, nor is the National Guard. They are in Iraq. In Iraq they are using guns to kill, not shovels and hammers to build. The rebuilding is a total joke and my tax dollars that were supposed to be used to rebuild Iraq are missing, ie. Stolen.

Second in case you haven’t noticed, the world IS a very ugly place and all the wars the US has started are not making it any prettier. The Generals have noticed this and are now willing to give up their jobs in order to prevent any further insanity killings by your illustrious president (yes I’m from the US but I refuse to call that asshat gump “my president”).
 
  by: Valkyrie123     02/26/2007 09:52 PM     
  @FreeKevin  
 
Evil is a poor choice of words.
Things typically don't break down into a good/evil scenario. If they did, things would be much easier.

I will say that there are people out there with intent to do harm to innocent people for their own gains. But wouldn't the crazy ass with nukes in North Korea be potentially considered one of those people? Not to mention, Bush seems more and more like one of "those people" everyday... So, who are we protecting the world from? Was Saddam's near non existent military that big of a threat to the world?

 
  by: Svengali   02/26/2007 09:57 PM     
  @Troll  
 
"I find it interesting that neither Volkova_Nova nor Redstain will admit that there are evil people in the world. They want to dodge the question as most of their type do."

It's not being dodged; it's being disregarded. It's a stupid question, comparable to asking someone if they support choking puppies or not.

"Do I think that we should invade Iran right now, no."

Then what the hell are you doing here, clamouring for attention? Did your girlfriend break up with you or something, and you need some company? Why are you in here arguing if you agree with what other people are saying?

"Do I think we should be willing to do whatever it takes to defend the greatest nation on Earth, yes."

I must have missed the news that Iran declared war on the US, or that there was definitive proof of a nuclear weapons program.

Too easy. Seriously, stick to calling talk-radio shows.
 
  by: Volkova_Nova     02/26/2007 10:00 PM     
  @Evil People  
 
At this point it's the stupid ppl who are more dangerous then the evil ones. They are the ones that give the Evil people the power and support they need to start wars.

Right now we seem to have plenty of those right here in the US. We should be at home battling that issue before we start pointing fingers at other countries for being bad. Of all the evil nations in the world, who has used the most WMD's before....?

You don't have to look very far, it us here in the US. So you can get off your high horse of righteousness FreedonSupporter.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/26/2007 10:02 PM     
  Valkyrie123  
 
Let me guess, Bill Clinton was a real President?
Don't do it for me, but read about the mess in Kosovo
http://www.townhall.com/...

And the world is an ugly place?
Maybe in your little hell hole, but in my world we have Freedom to disagree, to travel, to love, to help others.
You need to get out and see that the world is a beautiful place.
 
  by: FreedonSupporter     02/26/2007 10:05 PM     
  Don't pass go, don't collect 200  
 
Few minor mistakes as i see it Freedon

1: the usa is not the greatest nation in the world, they might have been somewhat high but its 'greatness' value has been crashing downward the last few years

2: i will gladly back your view that there is evil people in all those countries, but personally i'd say the one occupying the WH and his handlers is fairly high up there as well(no offense to the american public) so once you have dealt with THAT problem i'd be more willing to listen to talk about 'fixing' other countries

3: On your little A B C question i'd actually go for A since i believe in both law and justice, tho if forced to i'd do C if it became needed afterward

4: Insulting others only detracts from your points so its an wise thing to avoid

5: And totally unrelated but i'm curious so i try to understand your mindset in a broader range then this one subject: Whats your view on Chavez and Venezuela?
 
  by: bloodwave   02/26/2007 10:05 PM     
  @ FreedonForGranted  
 
There are evil people in the world. Someone certainly needs to take care of them. Unfortunately for us, they're running the show here in the US. I think if more of these generals agree to resign their commissions, people would see that this whole situation is a sham. Some of you people are so blinded with partisan politics that you can't see what is blatantly happening in front of you. You can call me a whiny liberal and whatever other drivel you need to make yourself feel better, but you'd be very wrong. The worst thing we could possibly do is start another war under false pretenses.
 
  by: erasedgod   02/26/2007 10:12 PM     
  bloodwave  
 
The US is still the greatest, at least until 2008. After that I may have to agree with you.
If GW and Cheney were really evil, don't you think they would have worked out something with Saddam? Who better to help drive up the price of oil than a dictator with an oil producing country? Evil I don't think so.
How about C then A?
Chavez, two comments come to mind:

There's no such thing as a free lunch and "caveat emptor"

If everyone thinks GW is evil, then how can Chavez be a God?
Chavez offers heating oil to poor families, while saying the country they live in should be wiped from the face of the Earth. He's commended.
Bush saves 23 Million people from a dictator and is called a madman.
It's got to be that wacky media.
 
  by: FreedonSupporter     02/26/2007 10:18 PM     
  Side note  
 
Is it just me or does Hillary Clinton look inherently evil? Really, she kinda creeps me out. Am I crazy or do others feel similar about her?
 
  by: Svengali   02/26/2007 10:22 PM     
  erasedgod  
 
Name something that Bush has done that's evil. Bush himself, not a soldier, not an aide. Bush himself.
Sure we should have put 350,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq, but that's just bad planning not being evil.
Saying that Israel should be wiped from the face of the Earth is. Telling children that there one and only objective in life should be to kill Americans, that's also evil.
Maybe I watch different TV channels, but I haven't seen any "Kill your neighbor the Muslim" ads running from the White House.
There's evil, then there's just not getting the job done in an efficient manner.
 
  by: FreedonSupporter     02/26/2007 10:33 PM     
  Troll  
 
Well I will answer your stupid plan as day obvious questions. For the record I am a "tree hugging hippie crap" liberal. I believe that there should be a cure AIDS for the world, that all the world should try to stop global warming. I also strongly believe in letting gays marry and keeping abortion legal. Who I marry or choose to have sex with is my own business not yours (within legalities obviously). What I choose to do with my body (and anything within my body) is my own business.

"All I ask is that you admit that there are bad people in the world."

No one I saw was saying that everyone is good. We wouldn't needs laws or prison systems if there weren't. We have tons of criminals here, should we bomb ourselves? BTW, Bush is bad. Though I am willing to bet you disagree with that.

"And that those people cannot be reasoned with."

Yes, you for example. Bush for another example. There are plenty of people who only see/believe what they want to see/believe or what they are told to see/believe. Many people can't be reasoned with.

"If you can honestly say that everyone in the world can hold hands and sing Kuhmbaya, I understand some of your posts."

No one said that, I don't see how that would make you understand their posts though. Will endless unprovoked wars lead to world peace? Nope. Is there world peace now? Nope. But it was a much better place before Bush & Oil Companies invaded Iraq.
 
  by: NoTalentAssclown     02/26/2007 10:49 PM     
  Most  
 
soldiers follow their generals. If the generals quit on mass, the lots of soldiers will either do the same at first chance (all ranks from private to coronal), or they will be severly demoralised. Which will resut in extream poor planning and many deaths of Allied forces.

On a personal note (ie OPINION not trying to pass off as anything factual) it does seem Bush is spreading himself a bit thin, he is trying to fight on to many fronts, trying to control one country is hard enough (to proove the never actually controlled Afganistan yet), and he wants 3 on the go?
 
  by: ssxxxssssss   02/26/2007 10:53 PM     
  NoTalentAssclown  
 
Is that an appropriate name?

The point here is that someone called the "Times" New York, London, Shreveport, who knows.
They said that "Generals would resign".

Do you think it's right for military officers to disobey an order if they think it's wrong?

If so, see what happens when your kids try that with you.

Same principle, when the chain of command is broken all is lost.

You either look up to these Generals, or you don't. I believe that they can have a point of view but there's only one person in charge.
 
  by: FreedonSupporter     02/26/2007 11:11 PM     
  @FreedonSupporter  
 
Welcome to SN!
I see that you're getting acquainted with the others on SN.
It's not easy being a conservative on this site, but it appears you're holding your own pretty well -- especially considering you're getting mobbed by a gaggle of liberals and maintaining your composure in the process. Good for you.

I definitely see your point of there being evil in the world. When a world leader openly expresses his desire to eliminate other countries from existence, it’s apparent that the guy isn’t pure-of-heart. Kudos to you for making your voice heard and making your stand.

Back to the subject at hand…
The US won’t be the one to perform a preemptive against Iran. You can bet your mushroom-cloud that it will be Israel. While the US is receiving international pressure to pursue diplomatic resolutions, Israel isn’t going to sit at the table and gab, while allowing Iran more time to complete their nuclear weapon.

“Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.
To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.
A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

Emphasis on the “unilateral”. That means Israel’s mindset is, “You guys go to your table and talk yourselves to death. Meanwhile, we’re going to do what needs to be done…”
They’re going to do it alone, if necessary. That’s one courageous little country…
 
  by: CArnold     02/26/2007 11:22 PM     
  @freedon  
 
"Do you think it's right for military officers to disobey an order if they think it's wrong?"

Morally or strategically? If the former, it's their obligation. If the latter, it's hard to say what's right. These aren't some grunts who deserted to Canada you're talking about anymore. If seasoned military men will no longer follow, talking about what's right is no place of ours, because obviously greater things have gone wrong.

"If so, see what happens when your kids try that with you."

I'm reminded of cases in which children abused for years finally kill their abusive parent to protect the other parent or siblings. What happens? The courts usually let them off, determining their actions justified. Here we see generals turning on the Commander in Chief after years of what could be considered his abuse of their forces and motherland. I, for one, have no problem with that.

"Same principle, when the chain of command is broken all is lost."

At least until the next election. All is lost for the Neocons, but America just needs to hire more effective management.

"You either look up to these Generals, or you don't."

So, do you support our military or not? You can't have it both ways. If they reject the President, you can either support them or him. What'll it be?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     02/26/2007 11:28 PM     
  @Freedon: I do have a life away from SN you know.  
 
I just went to get a meal with my girlfriend. I come back and whoosh, I'm being accused of ignoring you.

Hang on, give me 30 mins to read all the backlog. Jeez, I'm almost sorry I got involved with this high maintenance discussion.
 
  by: redstain   02/26/2007 11:45 PM     
  @FreedonForGranted  
 
That's easy. Just search "Bush" here in SN. I promise you'll find all sorts of fun things Bush has done to help the rich and screw the rest of us all while giving himself ultimate power and doing away with the basic foundation of our democracy.

"Sure we should have put 350,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq, but that's just bad planning not being evil.
Saying that Israel should be wiped from the face of the Earth is"

No, we shouldn't have put any troops in Iraq at all. Have you forgotten the media buildup to the invasion? Bush had (most of) us convinced that a "WMD" attack from Saddam could happen at any minute. Hm... sound familiar? Saying anything is hardly evil... actually wiping a country off the map for your own financial gain is very much evil.

"You either look up to these Generals, or you don't. I believe that they can have a point of view but there's only one person in charge."

As an active duty Marine and a combat veteran, I do look up to the generals. Unfortunately for us all, (especially those of us with blinders on for the time being) the one person in charge is going to get us all killed.

@CArnold: The fact that you can applaud any action that undermines the diplomatic process and start (what will likely be) a world war is very telling of your character. Anything Bush/Israel does, no matter how destructive to the well-being of us all, is just dandy.

I can just imagine the jubilation of neo-cons everywhere when Bush suspends the '08 elections in light of a "state of national emergency"... What better emergency that a war with Iran. Pay attention, when Bush declares himself supreme "decider", I want to see how you'll try to claim "liberal bias".
 
  by: erasedgod   02/26/2007 11:48 PM     
  @erasegod  
 
“The fact that you can applaud any action that undermines the diplomatic process and start (what will likely be) a world war is very telling of your character.”
My magnifying glass is apparently broken, as I was unable to see where I applauded any such thing. Either provide me the quote, or concede that you’re being dishonest.

“What better emergency that a war with Iran. Pay attention, when Bush declares himself supreme "decider", I want to see how you'll try to claim "liberal bias".”
Hmmm… Are you from America? I only question that because everyone in America knows that no such thing would ever be tolerated. That man would be thrown out of office quicker than you could say “Republican Revolt”. While I hold conservative views, I pledge my allegiance to the US and it’s Constitution – not the man in the Oval Office, or the party he belongs to.
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 12:09 AM     
  Example of wardrumming/propaganda in the media  
 
New York: Targeted By Tehran?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

Almost the same as 45 min threat from Iraq...
 
  by: Kaleid   02/27/2007 12:22 AM     
  Has anyone read the source?  
 
Most of these posts have dwelled upon the assumption that the Generals/Admirals would resign because they believe an attack on Iran would be unethical, or because they don’t believe Iran should be attacked.
Read the source.
The only point of contention mentioned within the source has to do with our military capability to engage in such a war.
Bottom line: The Generals/Admirals only question our readiness, equipment, weaponry, and soldiers available to commit to this theatre. That’s it.
From that standpoint, their concerns are valid. We’re already spread pretty thin with troops and equipment deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do we have the military wear-with-all to engage in another conflict?
A few of them think not…
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 12:30 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
"Has anyone read the source?"

Doesn't seem as though your new pal The Troll did - he didn't even seem to know what "Times" the summary refered to.

"Most of these posts have dwelled upon the assumption that the Generals/Admirals would resign because they believe an attack on Iran would be unethical,"

Show one post that indicates such a thing.

"or because they don’t believe Iran should be attacked."

Right - as do the people commenting against attacking Iran.

"The only point of contention mentioned within the source has to do with our military capability to engage in such a war. Bottom line: The Generals/Admirals only question our readiness, equipment, weaponry, and soldiers available to commit to this theatre. That’s it."

No, that's not it. - to quote the source:

'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.'

"From that standpoint, their concerns are valid. We’re already spread pretty thin with troops and equipment deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do we have the military wear-with-all to engage in another conflict?
A few of them think not…"

It's nice to agree on something after all, isn't it?
 
  by: Volkova_Nova     02/27/2007 12:46 AM     
  @Freedon: I do have a life away from SN you know.  
 
I just went to get a meal with my girlfriend. I come back and whoosh, I'm being accused of ignoring you.

Hang on, give me 30 mins to read all the backlog. Jeez, I'm almost sorry I got involved with this high maintenance discussion.
 
  by: redstain   02/27/2007 12:49 AM     
  Now I'll read your replies tomorrow. Behave.  
 
FreedomSupporter
"All I ask is that you admit that there are bad people in the world."
Yup, no arguement. Some bad Republicans, some bad Democrats. Some bad Americans, some bad Auslanders. Murdoch, Cheney, Bush; always bad.

"If someone threatened you and your family with bodily injury, would you:.."
I'm glad you're such a proud, walking bag of testosterone. But yet again, this has nothing to do with 'following orders' dissention in ranks. Let me help you start of a line of coherent reasoning to argue against:

* One of the popular tenets of the Military is to follow orders.
* But the military is used to defend people and ideals more than just killing. (We've got plenty of criminals who do that.)
* I postulate that following orders is only a means to the goal of protecting the greater good.
* At WHAT POINT, are you obliged to disobey orders if you feel it's not for the 'greater good'?

Or we can go back to name-calling.

"Do I think that we should invade Iran right now, no. Do I think we should be willing to do whatever it takes to defend the greatest nation on Earth, yes."
You see, the way you suggest "invade Iran RIGHT NOW" suggests you're masquerading as a moderate even tempered person - I may be wrong. But it sounds like, soon as you have public opinion going your way, or public attention away from you, the nukes will start flying. The comment of the greatest nation on earth saddens me. It could have been, but it's only the nation with biggest muscles. We're crippled with debt, and we're trying to use our might to enlist other nations to slow down the rot. The defecit continues to grow. But I see you heart and defense is the last thing on your mind. I'll refer you back to the SouthPark comment I made earlier.

"Bush saves 23 Million people from a dictator and is called a madman."
Half of the world think Bush is a madman. Another 40% do too, but keep quiet because of the might of US. I'm seriously doubt you've travelled outside your town, the state. I don't need to talk to the wacky media, I've worked in different countries and met different people.

"Name something that Bush has done that's evil. Bush himself, not a soldier, not an aide. Bush himself."
Uuh, where do I start?
* Sign order to invade Iraq?
* Not recognised authority or International Courts when they rules against US.
* Stealing the election?
* Blaming it on God?
[really, the list goes on]

"Telling children that there one and only objective in life should be to kill Americans, that's also evil."
Yeah, like I said. Evil you, evil me. Don't let one justify the other. They got tanks, you got the entire US might; it makes them insanely outmatched, and you a f&*$%ing a$$hole for itching to use it.

@Svengali
"Is it just me or does Hillary Clinton look inherently evil?"
Yeah she does, but I don't hold someone's appearance against them.

@Carnold
I was wondering when the support would arrive.
"Good for you. ... Kudos to you for making your voice heard and making your stand."
Credit where credit it due. This is not it. He logged in one day, no discussions and launched into his rhetoric. He's like a monkey throwing faeces around 'making his voice heard'. I'd suggest there less 'closing ranks' and more calling a spade a spade.

"The US won’t be the one to perform a preemptive against Iran. You can bet your mushroom-cloud that it will be Israel."
Yeah, possibly. It's too close to tell. Will Israel be damned in a middle eastern conflict? Or will the States decide it can't wait? You think it's the Israelis? Possibily. It's funny though, Israel is 'asking daddy' whether it's allowed to strike back.

"That’s one courageous little country"
If that's what you call it. Sad really - spiteful little nations on both sides. And we're there puppetmastering another "war by proxy".
 
  by: redstain   02/27/2007 12:50 AM     
  You know  
 
I wouldn't be surprised if the nutjobs like Freedon that come and go are the same person. :|
 
  by: fballer23   02/27/2007 01:00 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that you argue semantics when someone calls you on your BS.

"That means Israel’s mindset is, “You guys go to your table and talk yourselves to death. Meanwhile, we’re going to do what needs to be done…”
They’re going to do it alone, if necessary. That’s one courageous little country…"

Whether or not you literally applaud it, you still seem to enjoy the idea to a large degree.

"Are you from America? I only question that because everyone in America knows that no such thing would ever be tolerated."

I thought my blatant concern for the wellbeing of the country made that pretty obvious... unless you find that sort of thing "unamerican". Also, he has already pretty much made it legal through signing statements and executive orders. What would you or anyone else do?
 
  by: erasedgod   02/27/2007 01:23 AM     
  @Volk  
 
Hey Volk. Nice speaking with you again…

“No, that's not it. - to quote the source:” [Insert the paragraph you quoted here.]

Volk, you quoted a paragraph from near the bottom of the article. Sure they’re concerned about the repercussions of such an attack (as your quote states), but that reason isn’t the one for their potential resignation.

“A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.”

“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.”
“…effective or even possible…” In re to the US’ military capability of carrying out such an attack.

“It's nice to agree on something after all, isn't it?”
You always agree with me… you’re just in the closet about it. :-P
C’mon, Volk… Let out that inner-Conservative that’s yearning to be released…!
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 01:27 AM     
  conservative  
 
Neoconservatism was to be brough to the regular conservatism against people's own wishes.
Those running the show atm are anything but conservative.
 
  by: Kaleid   02/27/2007 01:29 AM     
  @Carnold: you sound so much like the Emperor  
 
"C’mon, Volk… Let out that inner-Conservative that’s yearning to be released…!"

".. yes! Feel the inner-Conservative rise within you... Feel the power of the Dark Side. Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy as Cheney and Bush!"
 
  by: redstain   02/27/2007 02:00 AM     
  nice  
 
there is no reason they cannot talk to iran and come to some agreement.besides iran cant drum up the money to finish some of there projects anyways.whats the point besides u.s is running out of money stop darth varder stop.....
 
  by: flukemol   02/27/2007 02:26 AM     
  Money  
 
NK barely had any money but still managed to put together the bomb.
 
  by: Kaleid   02/27/2007 02:33 AM     
  @redstain  
 
More personal attacks?
When are you going to lay down your “1001 Insults” handbook and contribute something worth reading to the topic?
You condemn FreedonSupporter for expressing his opinions (isn’t that what these forums are for???), yet your first post to him is a personal attack. On his name, at that. How childish is that?
Let’s not forget the many times you’ve been upset when others in other threads have called you “PeeStain”, “BedStain”, “TurdStain”, and other childish names. I personally have never thrown such immature insults at you, yet I think it’s necessary to remind you of the times you have been on the receiving end of them. They don’t add to the discussion at hand and only serve to further define your character (or lack thereof).

You really need to get a handle on your name-calling. While you may consider it the height of wit, it leaves the rest of us wondering, “What grade is he in?”
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 02:48 AM     
  @kaleid  
 
Hm... I may be mistaken, but I thought it was "NK barely had any food because they spent all their money building the bomb".
 
  by: erasedgod   02/27/2007 02:56 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
The spin-master-C strikes again.

It must be convenient to be able to cherry pick quotes from an article like this to fit your viewpoint and not have to go through the bother of fully comprehending the whole thing. Only the finest republicans are able to pull it off with such classy fashion.

When you reach the point of being the grand marshall of this republican led cherry picking parade you know it when you actually start believing some of the B.S. that gets flushed out of the WH. You get good at dressing up and spinning the bs to look like pure solid gold, you can build a career off it. Look at Rush Limbaugh for one. He's not going to be in the poor house anytime soon... Someone give this man some tax breaks for his anti-anti-american patriotism! Oh wait, he's in that juicy upper class area... oops, he's getting those breaks already... My mistake.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/27/2007 02:59 AM     
  Irrelevant.  
 
U.S. Generals may quit if Bush orders them to pick seashells from the California coast too. The issue is irrelevant because no one will invade Iran, at least not this administration. Politically, sociologically, logistically impossible.
 
  by: guyfawkes   02/27/2007 03:07 AM     
  @ukcn001XYZ  
 
Wow. Thanks!
So, you seriously believe I could be the next Sean Hannity or Rush, huh?
[Bows deeply in appreciation of your high-praise.]
While I appreciate your vote of confidence, I’m actually waaay too busy for that to even be a consideration. Although, perhaps in my next life…

“It must be convenient to be able to cherry pick quotes from an article like this to fit your viewpoint and not have to go through the bother of fully comprehending the whole thing.”
I love these kinds of posts. The ones where the author insists that I’m wrong about something… then conveniently tangents their post to other things (like Rush and tax-breaks).
If I’m wrong, why don’t you show me? Where am I wrong? How did I misinterpret the article? Where’s the spin?
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 03:11 AM     
  @The Spin-Master-C  
 
Your Cherry pick'n:
"The only point of contention mentioned within the source has to do with our military capability to engage in such a war."
And
"
Bottom line: The Generals/Admirals only question our readiness, equipment, weaponry, and soldiers available to commit to this theatre. That’s it.
"

As quoted directly from the article that you failed to read or mention:

'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.'

But don't worry, a little more Rush and I'm sure you'll have the spin-apprenticeship down.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/27/2007 03:30 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
"[Bows deeply in appreciation of your high-praise.]"

I can imagine that the bows must come pretty easy with your already starting from the "head up your ass position" rather then the fully standing.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm must be a little on the Axis of evil side when I woke up this morning.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/27/2007 03:35 AM     
  @Evil People  
 
At this point it's the stupid ppl who are more dangerous then the evil ones. They are the ones that give the Evil people the power and support they need to start wars.

Right now we seem to have plenty of those right here in the US. We should be at home battling that issue before we start pointing fingers at other countries for being bad. Of all the evil nations in the world, who has used the most WMD's before....?

You don't have to look very far, it us here in the US. So you can get off your high horse of righteousness FreedonSupporter.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/27/2007 04:15 AM     
  Sheesh... Not another one...  
 
CArnold said:
"Most of these posts have dwelled upon the assumption that the Generals/Admirals would resign because they believe an attack on Iran would be unethical, or because they don’t believe Iran should be attacked.
Read the source.
The only point of contention mentioned within the source has to do with our military capability to engage in such a war."

Now re-read that paragraph you quoted. Where does it say that the Generals will resign over the rising price of oil or terrorist attacks?
(Hint: It doesn't.)

Read the article. Again. If necessary, have one of your teachers explain it to you when you go to school.

Nice little insult that you provided. Do your parents approve of you using that kind of language?
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 04:17 AM     
  oops  
 
That last comment was an accidental refresh that resubmitted a previous comment.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/27/2007 04:18 AM     
  @Freedomsupporter..  
 
Read your history! Damn government mouthpiece.

"Let's ask Paul M. Johnson Jr, or Nick Berg if they tried to reason with their captors. Oh, that's right, they were beheaded, and their bodies were dumped in the street." - It was a fake!

Oh yeah like you could tell who his captors were..it was a CIA Psy-ops technique to fool you into believing terrorism is a threat..it's a exagerated threat to instill fear of you, me and subject us to draconian laws impinging on my rights and civil liberties! You'll have to kill me to follow those laws.

"Read your history, there have always been evil people, and some nation that has had to confront them. At this point in history, it's the United States.
Be proud and joyful that the US is here, without us the world would be a very ugly place."

I say again READ YOUR HISTORY! Get your brainwashed Fox news government mouthpiece ass of the plastic covered couch, cut the nuclear plastic cover from your house and see that there's a world out there...

Ever heard of False Flags????? They are terrorist attacks that have been supposedly foiled or carried out having been supported by governments worldwide... it often leads to the arrest of innocent people and terrorist plots simply created and put on the news to further instill fear and reinforce that 'your government' is winning the war on terrorism.

Be proud and joyful that the US is here...you cannot be serious? No you are, you are the perfect government mouthpiece..because the neo-con hawks believe that America was destined to fight evil alone and be the shining beacon of freedom and democracy.

mmm yes millions killed, hundreds of thousands injured & mamed, oil prices rising, rights and civil liberties eroded, human rights abuses in Gitmo & Abu Ghraib defying the Geneva Convention... I'm really interested to believe how it's the war on terrorism yet they are not prisoners of war..

Without the US the world would cope...it's the good people that arn't defined by borders, ethnicity and religion...something you probably couldn't understand.

You'll be the cause of FEMA camps detaining innocent people on US soil and further spreading the epidemic of fear of terrorism...wake up to yourself! Don't believe everything Fox News tells you, research...because I tell you now, you ain't taking my rights, freedoms and liberties...if you want to impose these laws on me, I'll be right here.

 
  by: mr-anderson   02/27/2007 04:38 AM     
  @freedon, @carnold  
 
Is that an appropriate name?

Of course it is.

Do you think it's right for military officers to disobey an order if they think it's wrong?

Well that depends on why they are disobeying. I don't want to have people protecting my country that will kill their own countrymen just because the president said to. I don't want to have people going into wars that are unprovoked or under false pretenses. Their job is to protect their country, not blindly follow commans no matter what they are.

If so, see what happens when your kids try that with you.

Depends. If I were to beat them or something then hell yeah I would want them to beat me and get the hell out. I want my kids to stand up for what the know is right and just, not be a puppet. I don't tell my kids "because I said so."

Same principle, when the chain of command is broken all is lost.

Not really. If it saves their life and the lives of those they care about and protects the principles that they were raised to have then I'd say I did my job. Not all is lost.

You either look up to these Generals, or you don't. I believe that they can have a point of view but there's only one person in charge.

Yeah and if that person in charge has ulterior motives at hand that aren't in the best interest of their country or puts other countries at risk...I would WANT them to stand up against the puppeteer.
 
  by: NoTalentAssclown     02/27/2007 05:44 AM     
  carnold  
 
The military is as big as they want it to be. I would be willing to be that if they attack Iran, there would be a nice military draft.
 
  by: NoTalentAssclown     02/27/2007 05:45 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
The rings of circular logic by the troll patrol have ran me around the same track far too many times.

Like the US generals, I too will follow suite and resigning from the wrath of dealing with stupidity.

Arguing with people like CArnold & Freedon will bring you down to their level of stupidity and beat you with their experience.

Peace out.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/27/2007 05:50 AM     
  @ukcn001XYZ  
 
“The rings of circular logic by the troll patrol have ran me around the same track far too many times.”
Is that what you’re going to call it?
Heh… You just got served.

I personally believe that you were doing some “cherry picking” of your own. You scavenged a paragraph that you felt would be contrite to my earlier statement. Satisfied you had made your “point”, you sat back smug and satisfied with your response.
But when you were forced to review what you were actually saying… it dawned on you how dumb and petty your argument actually was.

Seriously… Generals resigning because of the rising price of oil???
Heck, why would they wait for a war with Iran, if this were the case? Why didn’t they resign when oil was $70 a barrel and gasoline nearing $4 a gallon? And just how much sympathy and support would you expect these Generals to receive for dolling out such a superficial reason?

Resigning over terrorist attacks? Yeah… because Generals want to seem like deserters when their country needs them most.
Regional war? As I said, this is certainly everyone’s concern, but not one that would cause a General to resign.

If you’ll remember the dissention of some of the Generals when Rumsfield was in charge, the primary reason was that they were dissatisfied with the funding and troops they were receiving – they wanted/needed more to get the job done, but Rumsfield was unyielding to these requests. This is just more of the same. And you can’t blame the Brass for feeling this way. From their perspective: Unless they’re going to be equipped to go in and win the war… why bother starting it?

“Peace out.”
Just as well.
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 06:22 AM     
  I am not from the USA  
 
so your passion for particular political parties (as a way to define each other) somewhat escapes me, but. The generals would only consider leaving their post if they felt their men did not have the resources and support required. The idea of sending men in just to be slaughted sickens most, but devistates those who have risen through the ranks. If the troops are spread too thin, and their chances for survival far to low, and no one is listening to the generals (ie polititions ignoring them on their concerns) that could drive them to leave. Generals and Admirals etc generally care for their men and country first. They would only throw in the hat to make a stand if they honestly thought it would save the lives of their men.
 
  by: ssxxxssssss   02/27/2007 06:49 AM     
  @ssxxxssssss  
 
Well said.
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 06:52 AM     
  @FreedonSupporter  
 
Quote:I read the comments here and it makes me sad to call myself an American.

You shouldn't feel that way! It wasn't you that posted this stuff. They are the ones that should be sad.

I agree 100% with your first post but unfortunately you can talk to some people until your blue in the face and they just don't get it.

You have people in here comparing a rape to a beheading. That should have been a red flag for you.

They will team up against you hoping to ruffle your feathers and they feel they won something. I would imagine it won't take you long to figure out, for most in here, posting and whining is the highlight of their life.
When it comes to self preservation they would fail miserably as they haven't learned the lesson in life. "It is the strong that survive."

My friends and I do not post much in here, we find it much more entertaining to come and read the replies.

We have petitioned the government to do a extensive study on the use of the female hormone "estrogen" used as a growth stimulant in the meat and its effects on man. We use this site as a bases for our request.
Enjoy your stay.
 
  by: hellblazer     02/27/2007 06:55 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
"Volk, you quoted a paragraph from near the bottom of the article."

So let me get this straight: when you say 'read this source', you actually mean, 'read the top half of the source'?

Tell me, where is the cut-off point in an article's substance? And what comes after it, filler? Recipes? Haiku?

Seriously, this is just ridiculous, my friend. The location of the quote in the article has nothing to do with its priority to the person making the quote, but rather is placed there to fit an editor's idea of the article's structure.

I mean SHEESH, what's next, if the article author's last name begins with the letters M to Z, then the whole thing doesn't count?
 
  by: Volkova_Nova     02/27/2007 07:07 AM     
  LOL @hellblazer  
 
Nice!

You must be a carpenter, because you hit the nail perfectly on the head!
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 07:07 AM     
  @Volka  
 
I don't think we're debating the same thing, here...

I'm not saying the quote you provided didn't deserve merit. But at the same time, it doesn't voice what is bothering the Generals/Admirals to the point where they would consider resignation.

The paragraph you quoted was not a point of contention.
Rising oil prices? That's a given. Just look at what happened when we began the wars in the mid-East. Nobody is debating if this will happen. In fact, we expect it to happen.

More terrorist attacks and regional war? Who knows... At this point, such a forcast is mere speculation.
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 07:19 AM     
  WHoa  
 
Yeah, I would like to say, you guys take everything in life way to serious. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not. Majority wins, if the majority is a bunch of fools, then a fool will win.
Another note, I feel that none of you guys should be "forcing" your opinions on others. This is not the point here. If someone doesn't want to listen to reason, ignore them. If your reason is proven to be faulty, don't result to name calling.........
BTW Volkova_Nova I think I'm in love with you :)
just thought I'd share that..... :P
 
  by: matr1x   02/27/2007 07:31 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
"I'm not saying the quote you provided didn't deserve merit. But at the same time, it doesn't voice what is bothering the Generals/Admirals to the point where they would consider resignation."

Wasn't it? Let's look back.

The paragraph itself reads:

'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.'

Notice the part of that says 'an attack on Iran'. This does indeed voice, as you put it, 'what is bothering the Generals/Admirals to the point where they would consider resignation.'

But let's pretend for a moment, just for fun, that this quote never existed.

Earlier in this thread you said:

"Most of these posts have dwelled upon the assumption that the Generals/Admirals would resign because they believe an attack on Iran would be unethical, or because they don’t believe Iran should be attacked.
Read the source.
The only point of contention mentioned within the source has to do with our military capability to engage in such a war.
Bottom line: The Generals/Admirals only question our readiness, equipment, weaponry, and soldiers available to commit to this theatre. That’s it."

But then later on you bring up another quote from the article - one that you say makes this point for you - which reads:

"A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. 'All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.'"

Do you know what 'matter of conscience' means? It means it's an ethical question. Kind of contradicts what you said earlier about how the generals DON'T believe an attack would be unethical.

Seriously, you can't pick and choose quotes from the article and deem some valid and others not based on such silly things as their placement in the article. You end up doing silly things like tossing up quotes that contradict what you're saying the article says.
 
  by: Volkova_Nova     02/27/2007 07:34 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
You got balls. Now their gonna "Nail" you too! *LOL*
 
  by: hellblazer     02/27/2007 07:35 AM     
  @Volka  
 
“Do you know what 'matter of conscience' means?”
Sure. Read the post ssxxxssssss made, a few posts up from this one. He covers that very well.
If I were a General and felt that my troops were sorely unprepared for battle, I would be very bothered. The very notion of leading my troops into a massacre, or knowingly sending my troops into a combat arena where I felt they would be met with severe and unnecessary casualties would weigh VERY heavily on my “conscience”, too.

How you equate higher oil prices and terrorist attacks to a “matter of conscience” is going to need more massaging.

“Seriously, you can't pick and choose quotes from the article and deem some valid and others not…”
We’re on a roll tonight. We’re agreeing, once more.
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 07:56 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
Reading the minds of people posting here, and now reading the minds of the military. Amazing!

Myself, I'll go with what was actually quoted in the article - regardless of where in the article the quotes were.

(I'm still chuckling over that, by the way. I must remember to try that sometime. "But that quote was like 5 paragraphs in! It doesn't count!" Oh, the laughs we will have.)
 
  by: Volkova_Nova     02/27/2007 08:03 AM     
  @carnold  
 
how old are you? why are you not in iraq?
 
  by: ManilaRyce     02/27/2007 08:09 AM     
  @Volka  
 
"Reading the minds of people posting here, and now reading the minds of the military."
Errr... no. It's actually call "reading the text". I haven't mastered the whole mind-reading thing, yet, but I'm working on it.

"Myself, I'll go with what was actually quoted in the article - regardless of where in the article the quotes were."
As you should.

"But that quote was like 5 paragraphs in! It doesn't count!"
It does count. Just don't take it out of context to make it the crux of the debate, or the main topic of the article. Pretty simple... "Reading and Comprehension".
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 08:15 AM     
  @Manila  
 
"how old are you?"
120 and counting...

"why are you not in iraq?"
See answer to your first question, above.
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 08:17 AM     
  @erasedgod/@bloodwave  
 
Quote:Bush had (most of) us convinced that a "WMD" attack from Saddam could happen at any minute. Hm... sound familiar?

Actually that doesn't sound familiar.
I believe everyone read the same intelligent reports. Matter of fact Hillary went to the Clinton advisor's and they too agreed he had weapons. You make it sound like GW wrote the reports then tricked the majority of "Intelligent" leaders we vote in to look after our interest into a war. And after reading the reports and agreeing, 5 months later when the war began. Still no one caught on. Yet I read post after post about how stupid Bush is. Maybe you should make up your mind, can a stupid person out smart the majority of intelligent representatives we have in office?


@bloodwave
Quote:the usa is not the greatest nation in the world
After reading the replies in here I almost agree with you.
Can you enlighten me please. Who is the greatest nation in the world now?

Quote:3: On your little A B C question i'd actually go for A since i believe in both law and justice, tho if forced to i'd do C if it became needed afterward

I don't me to be rude but I am curious,
Can you explain to me how you would be able to excute A? It is my understanding they don't allow one phone call when your being robbed. That could have been a trick question. Just saying.
 
  by: hellblazer     02/27/2007 08:28 AM     
  @carnold  
 
my question still stands should you have the courage to answer it honestly.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     02/27/2007 09:58 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
"How you equate higher oil prices and terrorist attacks to a “matter of conscience” is going to need more massaging."

This isn't that complicated. The generals worry that the war they must execute for the President will cause A) economic and B) physical harm to the people of this nation. If they are confident of the strong possibility of this outcomes, how could acting NOT be a matter of conscience?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     02/27/2007 10:03 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
"Errr... no. It's actually call 'reading the text'. I haven't mastered the whole mind-reading thing, yet, but I'm working on it."

Oh, come now - don't be honest! In your very first contribution to this thread, you said, "Most of these posts have dwelled upon the assumption that the Generals/Admirals would resign because they believe an attack on Iran would be unethical, or because they don’t believe Iran should be attacked."

. . . when in fact no one at that point had said any such thing.

Don't be humble about your telepathic powers!

"It does count. Just don't take it out of context to make it the crux of the debate, or the main topic of the article. Pretty simple... 'Reading and Comprehension'."

The quote was never taken out of context - it was accurately described as giving reasons for not invading Iran, as you yourself even conceded.

Let me give you a brief journalism lesson:

You see, articles begin with the general jist of the story. The further down you go, the more specific in details they get. The quote you keep harping on, "A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. 'All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them,'" is general. Later on, we see the quote, "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," which is more specific.

You'll see this same structure - going from general to specific as the article progresses - in any well-written news story.

Basic journalism, really. I do this for a living. No need to thank me.
 
  by: Volkova_Nova     02/27/2007 10:05 AM     
  Oops!  
 
When I said, "don't be honest!", what I meant was "don't be modest!"

Of course, no one really needs to tell you either one of those things . . .
 
  by: Volkova_Nova     02/27/2007 10:08 AM     
  The "failed" intelligence  
 
Bush had his people like Douglas Feith working over at office of special plans to cherry pick the intelligence, especially after the CIA reports didn't come back to Bush telling him what he wanted to hear.

All doubts of the intelligence that came we're ignored, it was simply finding a way to start the war.

Many democrats knew exactly the game that was going on and simply joined in on the public deception (media knowingly guilty as well).
 
  by: Kaleid   02/27/2007 10:37 AM     
  Good news!  
 
Great story Volkova_Nova.
 
  by: banshee9898     02/27/2007 12:25 PM     
  here's a beaut  
 
Ex-Congressional Aide: Karl Rove Personally Received (And Ignored) Iranian Peace Offer in 2003


http://www.democracynow.org/...
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     02/27/2007 12:53 PM     
  First Iraq, then Iran  
 
The 2003 decision to target Iran under TIRANNT should come as no surprise. It is part of the broader military roadmap. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated in 1995 "in war theater plans" to invade first Iraq and then Iran.

"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil."

http://www.milnet.com/...

More here:
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/...

It's important to notice that some of these plans were written during Clinton years. I have personally come to the conclusion that there's no real difference with between the "left" and the "right" when it comes to foreign policy. It seems it's nothing but playing good vs bad cop...

Scott Ritter is another person who has said that many of the Iraq plans we see were written during the Clinton years.
 
  by: Kaleid   02/27/2007 12:58 PM     
  @you three neo-cons  
 
Are you three done verbally fellating each other? I understand that you have the wool pulled so far over your eyes that you make the other conservatives on this site not want to comment for fear of being associated with you, but there's really no need to bring attention to your own ignorance. Really, it's hilarious that you people are so far to the right that you make moderate conservatives look like radical leftists. Do you not see that?

As for Bush being stupid, he is, but apparently he is less stupid than the voting public. However (and unfortunately for our country), it is possible to be stupid and evil. Secondly, when I refer to Bush, for the most part, I'm talking about his entire administration. The top advisers and "deciders", on both sides of the aisle have set this country up for failure.
 
  by: erasedgod   02/27/2007 01:23 PM     
  @ErasedGod  
 
Your right....

There are things I'm liberal about and things I'm conservative about.

Thanks to the hardliners any moderate views are silenced.

But that's how it is. It shouldn't be.

I believe we all should pull out of Iraq, however not to leave a power vacuum which when we do leave will happen anyway... at least if we give it another 1-2 years we'll train Iraqis to the best of our ability to fight the power struggle.

However I go back to the point that Iraq is an illegal war based on false baked intelligence for the soil purpose of strategic political positioning and resources.

So that's what people should be addressing, not like Fox News correspondent Freedonsupporter who proclaim America as being the beacon of freedom and without it we'd be screwed..and who believes that terrorism is a real threat...I think the point I'll make to that is that more people die from lightning, flu's, AIDS, Influenza, hit and runs, car accidents etc than terrorism and yet people feel the need to address a low mortality cause than AIDS... I mean wtf answer that freedonsupporter. No you can't, that's right..you got nothing. Terrorism is nothing but a boogeyman and your the PR department.
 
  by: mr-anderson   02/27/2007 01:53 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
"LOL @hellblazer
Nice!

You must be a carpenter, because you hit the nail perfectly on the head!"

Ieee.... CArnold, I'll make one more loop around the block on this article.... But that's it.

You again summarized the meaning of the article as:
"Read the source.
The only point of contention mentioned within the source has to do with our military capability to engage in such a war.
Bottom line: The Generals/Admirals only question our readiness, equipment, weaponry, and soldiers available to commit to this theatre. That’s it."

You failed to mention in your rehashed cherry pick'ns of the article that directly say:

"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."
And
"All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion." - Congrats you actually got this one.
But then it states: "Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them."

And
“We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,”

CArnold - If you were to say something along the lines that: If such an attack were carried out on Iran, there are military supply, ethical, and long term safety concerns for both military and civilians back home.

I'd say sure, CArnold understood the points of the article well.

But you didn't, you picked out what ever parts fit into your narrow minded view of what you wanted to believe.

I used to be a republican voter myself until the current administration took office.
People like yourself and the current admin have driven us to the otherside b/c we started to look around and we found ourselves surrounded by single minded idiots in that camp.

Now it seems with presidential elections with the republican party, it doesn't matter which republican makes it through primaries as a presidential candidate. It's all the same. It's like running the special Olympics, doesn't matter which republican comes out first as the parties candidate, it's still going to be a retard.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/27/2007 04:26 PM     
  behind every great man...  
 
The Admiral's mother has him pinned into the corner by her fridge. She uses this same corner to box in her husband so the Admiral isn't gettin' away! She's twisting his ear.

'So , if all the other boys are jumping off a bridge , are you going to jump off too'?

She has him in an earlock , his right flap stretched almost to his shoulder. A tear bubbles out of his eye as pain overtakes him.

'Of course not Mammy' I wouldn't jump! I wouldn't jump!

She lifts him by the ear till only his tippytoes are still touching her beautiful cork floor.

'So you're going to just stop all this sissy-boy talk and go over to Iran and kick the beegees out of them. Do you hear me? You are to flatten that horrible place for me! Understand?'

His face is white as a sheet. There's a growing wet spot on the front of his trousers. When he gets like this his adenoids lock up and he can't really do more than squeaktalk.

He answers his mother. 'Squeak!'

Later , at the human rights tribunal , this guy will say that his mammy made him do this awful thing in Iran.

I guess that makes this a motherhood issue. Hard to lose that argument in America. 'I did it for my Mammy.'

 
  by: Rip Snorter   02/27/2007 07:51 PM     
  @Volk  
 
Your point is moot.
This has boiled down to a "I'm right, and you're wrong... can't you see?" type of argument.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one because it's rather difficult getting through to you. (Generals resigning over the rising price of oil?? Are you kidding me??)

Thanks for the ad-hoc journalism lesson. I'll remember it the next time we speak, as it will give me some vague sort of roadmap through your way of thinking.

Gas has gone up another 10-cents, today. I think I'll go resign my job, now.
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 08:50 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
'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.'

Prob doesn't mean they're worried about just filling up his jeep at the local gas station, but more so about the bigger picture of the economy facing the challenge of keeping oil supplies from an unstable middle east.

You know that though. You're just being a dink.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/27/2007 10:36 PM     
  @ukcn001XYZ  
 
The Gens and Adms arn't economists. It's not their job to analyze and work on global or even national economics. They only economics they concern themselves with is their military budget.

This is like arguing whether or not the White House is purple. Of course it's not purple, and everyone can see that. But for the sake of liberal spite, some will insist on it tooth and nail. You can only argue with these dense people for so long before you eventually throw up your hands and leave them to wallow in their ignorance.

More name calling? Are you and redstain in the same grade?
 
  by: CArnold     02/27/2007 10:51 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
alright... enough dealings with the dancing puppet of the state...

Finish up with your closing arguments and lets move on with our lives.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/27/2007 11:10 PM     
  Silly Rabbit.  
 
I've been accused of name calling.
"@redstain ... More personal attacks? ... “PeeStain”, “BedStain”, “TurdStain”"

When I was referring to name calling, I was not admitting to it, I was referring to FreedonSupporter's *first ever* post on SN.
[Go Hide! 02/26/2007 07:35 PM "Most of you are whiny, sniffling, uneducated, ostriches."]

Carnold, your language has been far from civil, either. As far as unprovoked attacks go, I believe you owe me an apology. I don't expect you will, but for the record you owe me one.

I would also request you desist from besmirching my Stain - I mean my name. But, again, I would expect you to comply.

== == == == ==
Back to the subject at hand.

Don't you think the concept of the Army following orders is a little one dimensional? Sure, one of main tenets of the Military is to follow orders - that, and kill. But Politicians are supposed to serve the nation. Police are meant to maintain law. Doctors meant to heal.

But Doctors kill, Politicians lie and cheat, Police break the law. Each time, an apparently heinous act can be defended with a worthy ideal or mitigating circumstance; "he was stressed and only human", "can make an omlette without breaking eggs". So why do we still cling to the concept that the army exists to follow orders blindly?

Isn't the military just a glorified and organised group of people with guns? In the past, haven't the military committed coup d'etats before? I suggest, that the military - whatever you want to say about their intelligence - still has a mind of it's own.
 
  by: redstain   02/28/2007 12:28 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com