Why Adm. Fallon's Resignation is Frightening. Video

[December]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRdf4GpFzlM

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/82cb21af-3afe-43f3-bd1e-d60102853b26_ms.jpeg

Adm. William J. Fallon

[DANG]

I posted this video in the other Fallon thread.

It brings up a good poll question:
"How many people think there will be an election?"

It seems the Cheney regime could have saved everyone a ton of energy, time and cashola by letting them know an election would undermine plans they have set in motion.

This resignation is a clear sign of another aggressive war.

Dont think this war will be all nice and tidy and "OVER THERE".
The Iraqis were NOTHING![hr]I see Fallons point...... I would NOT want an absolute disaster on my record, either.

[Scribbler1]

I don't see a war with Iran in the near future. Our military is stretched WAY too thin as it is, there is no public sentiment for a war, and Iran has a REAL military. Iraq didn't have jack and look where we are there.
The only way we can fight a war with Iran is to go back to more conventional ways and just bomb the hell out of the whole country. Of course that will result in more civilian deaths than in Iraq and the public won't think well of that.

[lily]

You know, I used to think that, Scribbler..........but as each day goes past, Bush's legacy grows slimmer.....I honestly think he will go out with a bang......either on false information, or just pushing a button. Whenever he used to go out saber rattling, sooner or later there would be a report, or a general speaking, saying he's wrong.....so you just keep getting rid of those that will stop you.

[DANG]

I don't see a war with Iran in the near future. Our military is stretched WAY too thin as it is, there is no public sentiment for a war, and Iran has a REAL military. Iraq didn't have jack and look where we are there.I am sure the cheneybush regime, being the military geniuses that they are...... will take all of that into consideration.

Its all about NOT passing the reigns of power.

[apdst]

We don't have to go to war with Iran. we have them surrounded. We can defeat them and never fire a shot.

[Scribbler1]

I have considered that too, Lily. The reason I don't think it will happen is that Bush will get no support from much of anyone. Even if he WASN'T the lamest of ducks, he couldn't sell the TRUTH, let alone a pack of lies, to the American people at this point.
Also, I believe the Joint Chiefs would balk at such a move, Congress most certainly wouldn't go for it, and we wouldn't be able to get any kind of coalition together to fight Iran.
He of course could order a missile strike on Iran, but if HE didn't realize his so-called "legacy" would be in the toilet, I have some faith that some of his advisers would tell him that. If they would tell him his library would be the future site of another McDonalds and he would be the most reviled president in history, I think it would be enough to put the brakes on him.
I honestly believe he knows the whole Iraq fiasco was a total failure and I'm guessing even HE isn't so dumb as to believe he could do it right the second time with a fully militarized nation.

I suuuuuure hope I'm right on this.

[December]

There is one good article in Atimes:


Fallon falls: Iran should worry
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Admiral William Fallon's request to quit his position as head of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) and to retire from the military was apparently the result of a George W Bush administration decision to pressure him to resign.

Announcing the resignation, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he believed it was "the right thing to do", thus indicating the administration wanted it. Gates added that it would be "ridiculous" to suggest that Fallon's resignation signaled that the US planned to go to war with Iran.

Gates said Fallon's position would be filled by his top deputy, Army Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey, until a permanent replacement was confirmed by the Senate.

On Monday, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell, asked whether Gates still had full confidence in Fallon, would only say that Fallon "still enjoys a working - a good working relationship with the secretary of defense", and then added, "Admiral Fallon serves at the pleasure of the president."

READ MORE - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC13Ak01.html




We don't have to go to war with Iran. we have them surrounded. We can defeat them and never fire a shot.


And who is it We? Are you a neo-con spokesman?
By the way, before YOU go to war with Iran, don't forget to borrow money from China.

[lily]

He of course could order a missile strike on Iran, but if HE didn't realize his so-called "legacy" would be in the toilet, I have some faith that some of his advisers would tell him that. If they would tell him his library would be the future site of another McDonalds and he would be the most reviled president in history, I think it would be enough to put the brakes on him.

This is what I was getting at, in a round about sort of way. He has nothing to lose.....may as well do it. He Knows McCain hasn't got a chance and even less if he can find time out of his (now how did McCain put it......oh yeah) his "busy schedule" to start campaigning for him. He screws everything up so bad, no one can fix it and in 4 or 8 years, the Republicans get the power back......I think he's willing to sacrifice for that.



I honestly believe he knows the whole Iraq fiasco was a total failure and I'm guessing even HE isn't so dumb as to believe he could do it right the second time with a fully militarized nation.

Well......I doubt it, when everyone who tells you that you are wrong "retires". I honestly think, he thinks he's a military genius.....a war president!


I suuuuuure hope I'm right on this.

So do I.

[Scribbler1]

I don't think Fallon's quitting, forced or otherwise will mean much in the long run. He's just another in a long line of people who questioned Bush's military "wisdom" and are no longer around.

[Easy90]

Sorry, but you libs wouldn't know a Lt. General from a Warrant Officer. You haven't the vaguest concept of what your talking about. Your political comments are simply foolish...

[Scribbler1]

He of course could order a missile strike on Iran, but if HE didn't realize his so-called "legacy" would be in the toilet, I have some faith that some of his advisers would tell him that. If they would tell him his library would be the future site of another McDonalds and he would be the most reviled president in history, I think it would be enough to put the brakes on him.

This is what I was getting at, in a round about sort of way. He has nothing to lose.....may as well do it. He Knows McCain hasn't got a chance and even less if he can find time out of his (now how did McCain put it......oh yeah) his "busy schedule" to start campaigning for him. He screws everything up so bad, no one can fix it and in 4 or 8 years, the Republicans get the power back......I think he's willing to sacrifice for that.But I don't think WE are ready to sacrifice, again. We're still in Iraq and it isn't going as promised. Plus, he sold the previous war on what turned out to be incorrect information so the reaction of anyone other than the most virulent of Bush supporters would be skeptical at best.
And I agree that he has nothing to lose, with the possible exception of his place in history. And that seems to be pretty important to him right now, hence the abortive attempt to cool out the Israelis and Palestinians.
I think the certainty of where his "legacy" will go if he attacks Iran will serve as a moderating force.



I honestly believe he knows the whole Iraq fiasco was a total failure and I'm guessing even HE isn't so dumb as to believe he could do it right the second time with a fully militarized nation.

Well......I doubt it, when everyone who tells you that you are wrong "retires". I honestly think, he thinks he's a military genius.....a war president!That's where I hope the reticence of the military and the overwhelming majority of Americans will enter into the equation.

[lily]

But I don't think WE are ready to sacrifice, again. We're still in Iraq and it isn't going as promised. Plus, he sold the previous war on what turned out to be incorrect information so the reaction of anyone other than the most virulent of Bush supporters would be skeptical at best.

Well......you have more faith than I do Scribbler. Last I remember there were crys of war for days, when the Iranian boats buzzed our warships. Thankfully, the world found out what it really was. There Scribbler........ is a "mistake" waiting to happen and all it would take would be one order.

And I agree that he has nothing to lose, with the possible exception of his place in history. And that seems to be pretty important to him right now, hence the abortive attempt to cool out the Israelis and Palestinians.
I think the certainty of where his "legacy" will go if he attacks Iran will serve as a moderating force.

Well....we're going to have to agree to disagree. I hear him talk of George Washington and he says he's still reading about him:rolleyes:..and how no one knew how great he was until decades later.........you don't say God told you to go to war, he wanted you to be president and say no one will understand his "brilliance" for years........and then miss the chance of going out in a blaze of glory.

[Scribbler1]

I admit it's a combination of faith and panicked hope.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail if Bush actually does plan on this. REALLY cooler heads.

[BoogyMan]

I don't see a war with Iran in the near future. Our military is stretched WAY too thin as it is, there is no public sentiment for a war, and Iran has a REAL military. Iraq didn't have jack and look where we are there.

The only way we can fight a war with Iran is to go back to more conventional ways and just bomb the hell out of the whole country. Of course that will result in more civilian deaths than in Iraq and the public won't think well of that.


I don't see any kind of Iran war either unless there is some kind of aggression on the part of Iran.

The only thing that is scary about that video is what can be seen with a set of conspiracy goggles firmly strapped on.

[Scribbler1]

I don't see any kind of Iran war either unless there is some kind of aggression on the part of Iran.

The only thing that is scary about that video is what can be seen with a set of conspiracy goggles firmly strapped on.I'll leave the goggles off. I try to deal in logic and observation.
As for aggression by Iran, the same case of WMD, nuclear capability and the rest could be made by the Administration, but I think the people may be a bit more skeptical the second time. Some won't, of course, but I hope there are enough level-headed people left in this country who will demand proof this time.
And of course, the members of Congress, on both sides, want to be reelected. That won't happen if we end up with TWO quagmires at the same time.

[apdst]

Invading Iran would make alotta problems in Iraq go away.

We've already neutralized 40,000+ Islamists in Iraq, so their ranks are wearing pretty thin at this point. They can't even find people to conduct suicide attacks; they have to trick retarded folks into being the bomber. If they had to try and attack US forces in Iraq and Iran, their bite would be nothing more than a skeeter bite on our ass.

[Scribbler1]

Half the time it seems like our soldiers just get in the way of them slaughtering each other.
But I have yet to hear anyone in a position of authority say our forces are NOT stretched. There may be some disagreement regarding degrees, but we are NOT ready for another ground war. I would think we would learn from Iraq that they just don't "welcome us as liberators" over there.

[apdst]

But I have yet to hear anyone in a position of authority say our forces are NOT stretched.

Why do Libs keeping harping on that? Wars stretch armies. That's just the nature of the beast.

but we are NOT ready for another ground war.

What are you basing your opinion on?

[Scribbler1]

But I have yet to hear anyone in a position of authority say our forces are NOT stretched.

Why do Libs keeping harping on that? Wars stretch armies. That's just the nature of the beast.If we are FORCED into war, that's possible. This war was on OUR timetable.
Nevertheless, we ARE stretched and starting a THIRD war while fighting two others is just insane.

but we are NOT ready for another ground war.

What are you basing your opinion on?
The very same reasons I laid out in a previous post. We are engaged in two other countries, and Iran actually HAS a military which, if I remember correctly, whipped Iraq's military even with our assistance. And we can't even subdue Iraq, after that country's military was disbanded.

[apdst]

if I remember correctly, whipped Iraq's military even with our assistance.

You remember incorrectly. The Iran-Iraq War was an eight year long slug fest that resulted in Iran and Iraq hammering each other to a stand still, with neither making any real gains. The Iranian Army fought The Iraqi Army for eight years, and gained very little tactical advantage. That's not exactly something to brag about.

Nevertheless, we ARE stretched and starting a THIRD war while fighting two others is just insane.

I believe that a shootin' war in Iran would cause things to quite down, considerably, in Iraq, because the Islamists would have to renew their focus. The insurgents won't be able to fight a two front war. War in Iran might be what's needed to completely destroy the Islamists, once and for all.

[lily]

I believe that a shootin' war in Iran would cause things to quite down, considerably, in Iraq, because the Islamists would have to renew their focus. The insurgents won't be able to fight a two front war. War in Iran might be what's needed to completely destroy the Islamists, once and for all.



Man.....I'm completely lost on this one......Iran has been accused by Bush of harboring terrorists, arming terrorists, sending terrorists into Iraq.......and somehow you think starting a war with Iran is going to make things quiet down and the terrorists are going to go away?

[apdst]

somehow you think starting a war with Iran is going to make things quiet down and the terrorists are going to go away?

The terrorists don't have the resources to fight US forces in Iraq and Iran, at the same time. It's not hard to figure out.

Free yourself from the Liberal propaganda. There are two objectives in war, any war: 1) To do more damage in less time than the enemy and 2) Cause the enemy to expend his combat power at a higher rate than your own forces.

In Iraq we have enjoyed a 10:1 kill ratio. War with Iran might elevate that number to 20:1. That would expend the enemy's combat power at a rate that they could never sustain.

Don't believe me? Read Klauswitz, or Liddel Hart. They will tell you the same thing.

[lily]

The terrorists don't have the resources to fight US forces in Iraq and Iran, at the same time. It's not hard to figure out.

Free yourself from the Liberal propaganda.



Well, according to Bush they've been doing just that......so I guess it's all down to who's propaganda you believe. You're not calling Bush a liar, are you?

Free yourself from the Liberal propaganda. There are two objectives in war, any war: 1) To do more damage in less time than the enemy and 2) Cause the enemy to expend his combat power at a higher rate than your own forces.

In Iraq we have enjoyed a 10:1 kill ratio. War with Iran might elevate that number to 20:1. That would expend the enemy's combat power at a rate that they could never sustain.

........that's a lot of mights. It's also obviously an opinion I don't agree with.......not sure if it was you or not.......are you the one that said the entire strategy of going into Iraq was so that Iran would be sandwiched in-bewteen?

Me.....I think I'll wait to see how the American and Iranian elections turn out, before I go starting a third war........since we are having enough problems with the 2 already started.

Don't believe me? Read Klauswitz, or Liddel Hart. They will tell you the same thing. How about you read me? I'm not published, but I can tell you it's easy to go in and start a war and hard to get out.


I wish you luck, don't know where you're going to get the man power or money.........but as I've said, I have a feeling it'll be on, before Bush leaves office.

[apdst]

Well, according to Bush they've been doing just that

Actually, they haven't. We're only in Iraq and not Iran. You may notice that Iran isn't sending fighters and gear to Afghanistan. Why? Because they don't have the resources.

are you the one that said the entire strategy of going into Iraq was so that Iran would be sandwiched in-bewteen?

No, that wasn't me, but I totally agree with that premise.

I can tell you it's easy to go in and start a war and hard to get out.

That's a no brainer. There's only one path out of a war and that's victory. Of course acheiving victory is going to be damned hard.

[Scribbler1]

if I remember correctly, whipped Iraq's military even with our assistance.

You remember incorrectly. The Iran-Iraq War was an eight year long slug fest that resulted in Iran and Iraq hammering each other to a stand still, with neither making any real gains. The Iranian Army fought The Iraqi Army for eight years, and gained very little tactical advantage. That's not exactly something to brag about.But the point was "with our assistance" and a stalemate still means you got your ass handed to you.

I believe that a shootin' war in Iran would cause things to quite down, considerably, in Iraq, because the Islamists would have to renew their focus. Their focus, as you say, is US, isn't it? Engaging another country isn't going to exactly pacify them either way. The insurgents won't be able to fight a two front war. War in Iran might be what's needed to completely destroy the Islamists, once and for all.I seriously doubt that. You expect a war to destroy religious fanaticism? You don't scare these people when they know in their hearts they will go to heaven if they slaughter us. You know that.
And the insurgents are primarily interested in getting us out of Iraq. I don't see them as too worried about Iran.[hr]The terrorists don't have the resources to fight US forces in Iraq and Iran, at the same time. It's not hard to figure out.Terrorists never HAD the resources to fight our forces. That's WHY they're terrorists. The 9/11 hijackers numbered nine people, I believe.
THAT'S where they would get us. Not in Iran or Iraq.

[apdst]

But the point was "with our assistance" and a stalemate still means you got your ass handed to you.

No it doesn't...LMAO!!!

I seriously doubt that.

If you doubt it, then explain why the insurgency is losing steam in Iraq.

You don't scare these people when they know in their hearts they will go to heaven if they slaughter us. You know that.

They are fearless and powerful that they have resorted to sending retarded chick out on suicide missions. I know that.

The Japanese resorted to the feared suicide attack in World War 2. You see how well it worked for them.

Ultimately, it ain't about scaring them. It's about destroying their ability to wage war. The Japanese weren't afraid of us, either.[hr]THAT'S where they would get us.

And because they are dying by the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, they don't have the resources to attack us here.

[Scribbler1]

But the point was "with our assistance" and a stalemate still means you got your ass handed to you.

No it doesn't...LMAO!!!So you say, while in the same breath you say "There's only one path out of a war and that's victory" Well, where was the victory?
You don't scare these people when they know in their hearts they will go to heaven if they slaughter us. You know that.

They are fearless and powerful that they have resorted to sending retarded chick out on suicide missions. I know that.Irrelevant. They are, in many cases, religious fanatics.(I say "many" cases because you keep using the terms "terrorist" and "insurgent" interchangeably.) With a madman who believes he's going to heaven sees he is the only one left standing, do you really think he'll surrender?
And because they are dying by the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, they don't have the resources to attack us here.
They can't pay for a few plane tickets? That's all they'll need.
This is a different war from what we are used to and beating the living shit out of a country without killing every Iranian on the planet will not stop a few of them from getting in here and doing some serious killing.

This isn't like the movies, and it isn't like WW2.

[apdst]

Well, where was the victory?

The Iran-Iraq War was a draw.

They can't pay for a few plane tickets? That's all they'll need.

It's just a little more complicated than that. The 9/11 plot had been years in the planning.

This is a different war from what we are used to and beating the living sh1t out of a country without killing every Iranian on the planet will not stop a few of them from getting in here and doing some serious killing.

We might take a hit, or two, but we'll do more damage to them, than they will do to us. Persoanlly, I think they'll be too busy fighting us over there to come and fight us over here; not to mention they would then have to incur the wrath of The American People. Attacking us like that would be a huge mistake and I think they all know it.

[Scribbler1]

Well, where was the victory?

The Iran-Iraq War was a draw.I wish you wouldn't cherry-pick parts of my posts to respond to. Reread the whole response (right before "where was the victory) and you'll see what I was saying.
They can't pay for a few plane tickets? That's all they'll need.

It's just a little more complicated than that. The 9/11 plot had been years in the planning. And there may be such a plot cooking in this country NOW for all you know.
But that's not even relevant to my post. You imply attacking Iran will stop these insurgents/terrorists because they can't fight us in a war. I say that is false BECAUSE they don't have, nor do they need an army.

This is a different war from what we are used to and beating the living sh1t out of a country without killing every Iranian on the planet will not stop a few of them from getting in here and doing some serious killing.

We might take a hit, or two, but we'll do more damage to them, than they will do to us. Persoanlly, I think they'll be too busy fighting us over there to come and fight us over here; not to mention they would then have to incur the wrath of The American People. Attacking us like that would be a huge mistake and I think they all know it.
Are you saying the government of Iran would claim responsibility for a terrorist act? You know that won't happen, whether they really backed the terrorists or not.
You're right that they would be busy fighting us over there, mainly because it's their country. But you're dead wrong if you think this will stop terrorism.
9/11 was, for all practical purposes, a one-shot. al-Queda claimed responsibility and we knew where they were and what country harbored them. Iran would never make that mistake.

What WOULD happen, IMO, is that we would pulverize their country and immolate a lot of people, while old Mahmood high-tails it to Libya or someplace, and a whole NEW generation of suicidal terrorists would put this country right in its crosshairs. Like I said, this is NOT a "traditional" war situation over there. Iraq proved that. A defeated country with no military, and we're STILL there.

[apdst]

I wish you wouldn't cherry-pick parts of my posts to respond to. Reread the whole response (right before "where was the victory) and you'll see what I was saying.

There was no victory, the war was a draw. Neither side gained anymore than the other because of the war. No one surrendered. No lands were captured. No loot was taken.

You imply attacking Iran will stop these insurgents/terrorists because they can't fight us in a war. I say that is false BECAUSE they don't have, nor do they need an army.

Well, they do need an army. I didn't say they couldn't fight us in a war. I said they don't have the resources to fight us on multiple fronts. IOW, if we invade Iran, the Islamists will have to choose to either fight us in Iraq, or Iran. IMO, they can't do both.

Are you saying the government of Iran would claim responsibility for a terrorist act? You know that won't happen, whether they really backed the terrorists or not.

Of course they wouldn't. Iran would play the Liberal game of, "prove it". But, that's cool, when we find fairly credible evidence that Iran was involved, we bomb them into dust. It's just that simple.

But you're dead wrong if you think this will stop terrorism.

You're right. Nothing is going to stop terrorism. WW2 didn't stop tyrrany, or genocide, or attempts at world domination. However, we can damn sure make'em think twice before they come fucking with us again.

whole NEW generation of suicidal terrorists would put this country right in its crosshairs.

Bring it! Sooner, or later, they will figure out that it's a losing proposition. It's only human nature. It's why you make war on an entire society and beat them totally into submission.

A defeated country with no military, and we're STILL there.

We're still in Germany, too. What's your point?

[lily]

Actually, they haven't. We're only in Iraq and not Iran. You may notice that Iran isn't sending fighters and gear to Afghanistan. Why? Because they don't have the resources.

You've lost me here......which one of Bush's statements do you want me to quote?

Apdst.....no offense, but you're trying to re-write history too soon.

[DANG]

After all the Islamists are gone can we go after the Baptists?

[DANG]

It's just a little more complicated than that. The 9/11 plot had been years in the planning.
How can you claim that, when they dont even know who the planner was?
(or rather, wouldnt dare tell us WHO dunnit)

Thats an assumption. It could have been thrown together in a month.

(Hint: OBL was not involved)

[apdst]

You've lost me here......which one of Bush's statements do you want me to quote?

I don't understand your point.

[Scribbler1]

I wish you wouldn't cherry-pick parts of my posts to respond to. Reread the whole response (right before "where was the victory) and you'll see what I was saying.

There was no victory, the war was a draw. Neither side gained anymore than the other because of the war. No one surrendered. No lands were captured. No loot was taken.I guess that means you don't plan on reading (and understanding) the whole post you're quoting.

You imply attacking Iran will stop these insurgents/terrorists because they can't fight us in a war. I say that is false BECAUSE they don't have, nor do they need an army.

Well, they do need an army. I didn't say they couldn't fight us in a war. I said they don't have the resources to fight us on multiple fronts. IOW, if we invade Iran, the Islamists will have to choose to either fight us in Iraq, or Iran. IMO, they can't do both.You keep switching gears between Iran and terrorists. TERRORISTS can't fight us in a war, and the don't need to. Iran could fight us, and possibly lose, but you need some kind of LEGITIMATE reason to start a war with another country.

Are you saying the government of Iran would claim responsibility for a terrorist act? You know that won't happen, whether they really backed the terrorists or not.

Of course they wouldn't. Iran would play the Liberal game of, "prove it". But, that's cool, when we find fairly credible evidence that Iran was involved, we bomb them into dust. It's just that simple.Okay, so your good with "fairly" credible evidence. Most people would want more, and since Iraq, Bush isn't the guy to provide it.

But you're dead wrong if you think this will stop terrorism.

You're right. Nothing is going to stop terrorism. WW2 didn't stop tyrrany, or genocide, or attempts at world domination. However, we can damn sure make'em think twice before they come f_cking with us again.Make WHO think twice? Iran? At this point it's a war of words. Whoever fires the first shot will be the aggressor nation. I don't want to see it be US, again. Not without ironclad proof.

whole NEW generation of suicidal terrorists would put this country right in its crosshairs.

Bring it! Sooner, or later, they will figure out that it's a losing proposition. It's only human nature. It's why you make war on an entire society and beat them totally into submission.Bring it??
You don't know much about Islamic fundie terrorism, do you? The ONLY thing we have to use against an enemy is the threat of death if they don't give up. To these people, dying is merely a part of the operation and they get to go to heaven and collect all those virgins.
If the threat of death isn't going to work, you don't have much else.
Sure, you can blast the hell out of the Iranian people, and the terrorists will just relocate. That, and the Iranian people will have a pretty good reason to hate our guts for a long, LONG time.
If that's your plan, I'm comforted by the knowledge that the only power you have in this country is your one vote.

A defeated country with no military, and we're STILL there. We're still in Germany, too. What's your point?Are we at WAR with Germany? Apples and apples here, please.
My point was clear enough. If we go into Iran with a military force, we will probably have the same problems as we have in Iraq. We ARE stretched thin and we are already in TWO other countries where the locals are fighting us. If you think we can do it in a THIRD country that hates us simultaneously, I have a bridge in NY for sale.

[apdst]

TERRORISTS can't fight us in a war, and the don't need to.

Obviuosly, you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in Iraq.

Okay, so your good with "fairly" credible evidence. Most people would want more, and since Iraq, Bush isn't the guy to provide it.

We're not talking about beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a courtroom. I don't think someone should be able to attack our country and then walk on a technicality.

To these people, dying is merely a part of the operation and they get to go to heaven and collect all those virgins.

If that were the case, they wouldn't have to trick 'tards into being suicide bombers.

The Japanes, during WW2, weren't afraid of dieing, either. We whipped them well-n-good.

You're a broken record, dude. Are you following Herr Goebbels' philosopy? [Say something enough and people will believe it]? All you've posted are the Leftist talking points that we've been bombarded with for years, now. You have nothing to support your position. No comparisons, no bases, no nothin'.

Just a little fatherly advice, you saying it, doesn't make it a fact.

[Scribbler1]

TERRORISTS can't fight us in a war, and the don't need to.

Obviuosly, you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in Iraq.No, I think it more likely that YOU haven't been paying attention, and your constant confusion of terrorists and insurgents would show it. Plus, you tossing Iran in that same bag is ridiculous.
Again, TERRORISTS wear no uniform nor fly a country's flag. They have no military and that works for them because you can FIND an army. You can't find small bands of people who hide among civilians. If you bomb them, you just kill untold numbers of innocent civilians.
Since we don't really WANT to kill innocents (well, you don't seem to have a problem with that, but our military does), the terrorists have it made.Okay, so your good with "fairly" credible evidence. Most people would want more, and since Iraq, Bush isn't the guy to provide it.

We're not talking about beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a courtroom. I don't think someone should be able to attack our country and then walk on a technicality.Your use of the word "fairly" to describe evidence used to justify declaring war is disturbing, based on your overall tone. You imply that if we get hit again, and you THINK they MIGHT be from Iran regardless of any governmental complicity, you're fine with destroying the whole country.
If you apply your logic to 9/11, we would have had enough reason to destroy Saudi Arabia.To these people, dying is merely a part of the operation and they get to go to heaven and collect all those virgins.

If that were the case, they wouldn't have to trick 'tards into being suicide bombers.Tards? As I said, they are just tools. These people don't quite view life as others do. These fanatics don't mind dying, period. You have nothing to scare them with.The Japanes, during WW2, weren't afraid of dieing, either. We whipped them well-n-good.Your ignorance of history is astounding. Do you think ALL Japanese soldiers were Kamikaze?
No, the Japanese military wanted to KILL, and not die in the process. But in any case, it was a COUNTRY and its military we were fighting. Not bands of unorganized killers.
And the EMPEROR was the one who surrendered. It's not even a close comparison.You're a broken record, dude. Are you following Herr Goebbels' philosopy? [Say something enough and people will believe it]? All you've posted are the Leftist talking points that we've been bombarded with for years, now. You have nothing to support your position. No comparisons, no bases, no nothin'.So you say. When you back up your opinion with anything credible, or even a little accurate historical fact once in a while you might actually make a point.Just a little fatherly advice, you saying it, doesn't make it a fact.Great advice, pops. Why don't you heed it yourself sometime.

[AnnEsthesia]

Tards? As I said, they are just tools. These people don't quite view life as others do. These fanatics don't mind dying, period. You have nothing to scare them with.

If you're living a life of hell, why would death scare you?

[apdst]

No, I think it more likely that YOU haven't been paying attention, and your constant confusion of terrorists and insurgents would show it.

The insurgents and the terrorists are the same folks. It's the insurgents that are attacking civilians.

Again, TERRORISTS wear no uniform nor fly a country's flag. They have no military and that works for them because you can FIND an army.

We've killed over forty thousand terrorists in Iraq. Obviously, we can find terrorists, too. You can't find small bands of people who hide among civilians. If you bomb them, you just kill untold numbers of innocent civilians.[/quote]

We've been doing a fine job of finding them in Iraq. Don't forget, using civilians as human shields is illegal. I'm sure you're outraged over that practice.

You imply that if we get hit again, and you THINK they MIGHT be from Iran regardless of any governmental complicity, you're fine with destroying the whole country.

I said fairly credible, not, "think", or, "might". You don't fight governments, you fight countries. IMO, that's a mistake we made both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As I said, they are just tools. These people don't quite view life as others do. These fanatics don't mind dying, period.

You keep missing the point, so I'll say it one last time: they are obviously running out of people who don't mind dieing

Your ignorance of history is astounding. Do you think ALL Japanese soldiers were Kamikaze?
No, the Japanese military wanted to KILL, and not die in the process.

Japanese soldier were given orders to fight to the death, in every battle we engaged them in; orders they had no problem following. At The Battle for Iwo Jima, there were 21,000 Japanese defenders. 20,703 died. 216 were captured during the fighting. There was not a single Japanese soldier that surrendered. It's you, sir, that is ignorant of history.

If you apply your logic to 9/11, we would have had enough reason to destroy Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia funded, supported, endorced, condoned, or was otherwise complicit with 9/11?

So you say. When you back up your opinion with anything credible, or even a little accurate historical fact once in a while you might actually make a point.

I cite historical examples for everything I post.

[DANG]

I don't think someone should be able to attack our country and then walk on a technicality.
The trouble is; getting them to attack you 1st.
So you look justified. That didnt happen in Iraq.... and it doesnt apply to Iran either.

[DANG]

When you have a bloated military industrial complex you have to declare war on the flimsiest evidence just to perpetuate the budget and justify its existense.

Hitler blamed Poland for the Reichstag fire.
bush blamed Iraq for 911.

See the pattern?

[apdst]

Hitler blamed Poland for the Reichstag fire.

No he didn't!!!! Where do you people come up with this shit? Serious, where?

[apdst]

So you look justified. That didnt happen in Iraq.... and it doesnt apply to Iran either.

Saddam Hussein attempted to assissinate The President. That's an act of war.

[Scribbler1]

No, I think it more likely that YOU haven't been paying attention, and your constant confusion of terrorists and insurgents would show it.

The insurgents and the terrorists are the same folks. It's the insurgents that are attacking civilians.No, they're not the same folks. First of all, there is no single "THE terrorists" because different people use the same tactics for different ends. Going by what you have said in this thread, it's pretty plain you mean terrorists who mean to target this country, and they are different than people in a country who use terrorism against their own people. And "insurgents" are defined as people trying to go against, or overthrow their own government. In either case, these kinds of terrorists (and I do agree they ARE terrorists) are no threat to our country.

Again, TERRORISTS wear no uniform nor fly a country's flag. They have no military and that works for them because you can FIND an army.
We've killed over forty thousand terrorists in Iraq. Obviously, we can find terrorists, too.Might you have a source that states specifically all of them WERE terrorists? You can't find small bands of people who hide among civilians. If you bomb them, you just kill untold numbers of innocent civilians.
We've been doing a fine job of finding them in Iraq. Don't forget, using civilians as human shields is illegal. I'm sure you're outraged over that practice.I shouldn't even have to say I find the practice deplorable, but there's your answer.
The only thing is these people don't much respect laws, do they? And I'm sure they respect the rest of the world's laws even less. And if we were doing such a great job of finding insurgents in Iraq, I would think we'd be out of there by now, yes?
You imply that if we get hit again, and you THINK they MIGHT be from Iran regardless of any governmental complicity, you're fine with destroying the whole country.

I said fairly credible, not, "think", or, "might". You don't fight governments, you fight countries. IMO, that's a mistake we made both in Afghanistan and Iraq.So what does "fairly" credible evidence really mean? It's either credible or it isn't, period.
As I said, they are just tools. These people don't quite view life as others do. These fanatics don't mind dying, period.

You keep missing the point, so I'll say it one last time: they are obviously running out of people who don't mind dieingI use the word "tools" to describe those actions because it fits. I see no evidence to show they are so low in number that they only have mentally deficient people left. There isn't much census information om Iraqi insurgents. You can draw any conclusion you like, but in the end you just don't know.Your ignorance of history is astounding. Do you think ALL Japanese soldiers were Kamikaze?
No, the Japanese military wanted to KILL, and not die in the process.
Japanese soldier were given orders to fight to the death, in every battle we engaged them in; orders they had no problem following. At The Battle for Iwo Jima, there were 21,000 Japanese defenders. 20,703 died. 216 were captured during the fighting. There was not a single Japanese soldier that surrendered. It's you, sir, that is ignorant of history.Not quite as ignorant as you think. But I DO know the meanings of words and nowhere does it say "fight to the death" means killing yourself while killing an enemy.If you apply your logic to 9/11, we would have had enough reason to destroy Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia funded, supported, endorced, condoned, or was otherwise complicit with 9/11?Nope, at least not that we know at this point. My point was that most of the 9/11 hijackers were FROM Saudi Arabia which would have been more evidence to attack them than Bush had to order an attack on Iraq.So you say. When you back up your opinion with anything credible, or even a little accurate historical fact once in a while you might actually make a point.

I cite historical examples for everything I post.I don't see many, to be honest.

[apdst]

This is a photgraph taken on April 20, 1945 of Hitler encouraging some of Berlin's defenders. The tall kid in the back is what? 15?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/19450420_Hitler_65bd_awards_HJ_Iron_Cross.jpg

[Scribbler1]

I know you're quite disappointed that The United States isn't losing in Iraq, but I think you'll be ok.I'll be fine. But when you post utter trash like the above, you show you can't sink any lower.

Keep your loathsome insults to yourself in the future.

[apdst]

When the going gets tough, you get insulting.

[DANG]

Hitler blamed Poland for the Reichstag fire.

No he didn't!!!! Where do you people come up with this sh1t? Serious, where?
My mistake....but not completely off base.
It was the Reichstag fire that brought the Enabling Act (Read: Patriot Act).

Which gave Hitler dictator powers {edit to add: So that Hitler COULD attack Poland, uncontested}; much like the Patriot Act did for cheneybush.

The Patriot Act was not contested due to antrhax attacks on those who had the most power to stop it.

Congress then signed off all war powers.

Which is relative to the events of Nazi Germany. Same playbook.
911/Reichstag/Anthrax.... its all fascism and unchecked power.

They wont be stopped by term limits any more than Hitler would.

[DANG]

When the going gets tough, you get insulting.

WOW.... is that bullshit or what?

I see YOU as the offender.
You claimed Scribb wants the US to lose Iraq. He claims its unwinnable. How can WE win a Civil War FOR THEM????

They have to do that for themselves.

[apdst]

My mistake....but not completely off base.

Very off base. Hitler didn't use the Reichstag fire to justify invading Poland. He fingered the Communists for the fire.

Even more off base, because Bush didn't have, "Brown Shirts", attack The WTC. It's insulting to this country to compare The Enabling Act of 1933 to The Patriot Act. Please, stop with the conspiracy theories, unless you have some hard evidence.

I see YOU as the offender.

Of course you do. That comes as no surprise. Liberals always, always, always demonize those that they can't shout down. When shouting doesn't work, demonization is next. After than, come the insults.

How can WE win a Civil War FOR THEM????

Because it's not a civil war. I was hoping that Liberal talking point had died, but I reckon not. What's going on in Iraq, is that there are local Baathists, teamed up with foreign Islamists, that are killing Iraqi civilians. Rid Iraq of the Baathists and the insurgents, and you rid Iraq of the so called civil war.