• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

On Iran, top military officer sounds like Obama

A

Anonymous

Guest
On Iran, top military officer sounds like Obama
Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen urges diplomacy, not use of force



By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
updated 2:05 p.m. MT, Thurs., July. 3, 2008


WASHINGTON - It could turn out to be one of the most significant comments of the 2008 campaign — but coming just ahead of a holiday weekend, it isn’t getting much notice.

Upon his return from a visit to Israel and Europe, the nation’s highest ranking military officer warned Wednesday that a military strike on Iran would be a very bad idea.

“This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable,” said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen.

He added pointedly, “we haven't had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time,” seeming to imply that the Bush administration should be talking to the Iranian government.

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has said that if elected, he would begin talks with Iran, without any precondition.

The Bush administration has insisted that before talks can begin, Iran must cease its nuclear enrichment — a step toward building nuclear weapons.

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain has said that his rival's willingness to hold direct talks, without preconditions, reveals "the depth of Sen. Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment.”

Adm. Mullen, much like Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, is one of those powerful unelected officials whose words could, at times, have as much effect on the campaign as Obama and McCain themselves.

It’s unusual for a military officer, especially the nation’s highest ranking one, to warn in such explicit terms of potential military action and to so emphatically call for diplomacy.

“What struck me about the comments was that he called for dialogue with Iran in his preliminary statement, even before he was responding to (reporters’) questions,” said Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Alterman pointed to Mullen’s opening statement in which he said, “I'm convinced a solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure. There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level.”

Not ruling out use of military force
President Bush, McCain, and Obama, all say they would not rule out the use of military force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

But Mullen appeared to be edging toward saying that military action, either by Israel or the United States, or both, would be catastrophic.

He also warned that the United States would be hard pressed to conduct operations against Iran, given the commitment of tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“From the United States' perspective, the United States' military perspective, in particular, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us,” Mullen told reporters. “That doesn't mean we don't have capacity or reserve, but that would really be very challenging.”

And, he added, “The consequences of that (military action) sometimes are very difficult to predict.”

Mullen explained, “Just about every move in that part of the world is a high-risk move. And that's why I think it's so important that the international piece, the financial piece, the diplomatic piece, the economic piece be brought to bear with a level of intensity that resolves this.”

The Israeli air force staged a large-scale drill last month that some observers saw as a warning of a possible Israeli attack on Iran.

But Mullen assured reporters Wednesday that “the Israeli press reported fairly widely that…those exercises were planned and routine.”


In 1981, the Israeli air force destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. The Israeli government believed Saddam Hussein's regime was planning to use the plant to make nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel.

An attack on Iranian nuclear sites could cause the Iranian regime to attack shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s total daily oil demand is carried.

Oil prices hit a record high of nearly $146 a barrel on Thursday. As Americans drive during this July 4 vacation, one reason they're paying more than $4.50 a gallon in some parts of the country is the growing tension over Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in an interview with The Associated Press Wednesday that the United States and Israel would not risk such an attack.

“The Israeli government is facing a political breakdown within itself and within the region, so we do not foresee such a possibility for that regime to resort to such craziness," Mottaki said. “The United States, too, is not in a position where it can engage in, take another risk in the region.”

In Congress, some members have expressed their fear that the Bush administration might launch a unilateral attack on Iran.

But last year the House rejected, by a vote of 288 to 136, an amendment offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D- Ore., that would have prohibited funds being used to take military action against Iran without specific authorization from Congress — unless Iran had first attacked the United States.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25515357/
 

cutterone

Well-known member
Well that’s typical thinking of the bleeding hearts society on how to handle the situation. This crap all got started when Carter let the Ayatollah out of France and go back. We should have taken control of the situation then and all the messes in the region would not be. No 911, no Bin Laden, No wars!
First of all how is Iran going to retaliate if they are turned into a cinder? Don’t send troops – One bomber with a nuke and it’s done!! If we had done that in Iraq then all of this would be mute.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
cutterone said:
We should have taken control of the situation then and all the messes in the region would not be. No 911, no Bin Laden, No wars!
Get real. That area has been at constant tribal war since Abraham's days. The Romans dealt with insurgents. The Turks dealt with insurgents. Alexander the Great dealt with insurgents. What on earth makes you think us being there in the 70's would have changed that? Probably the same failing grades in history that Bush had.........which is why he actually thought we would be greeted as liberators and that we could build a democracy there in a couple of years.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Quotes from Neocons- who have been proven to not know their head from their arsehole :shock: :wink: :lol: :p

Four of my favorites from the top Neocon Liars:


"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003[/b]

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03


CAKEWALK!

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02

"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02

"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03

HOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED?

"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02

"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03

"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05

"The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the point."
- Rich Lowry, conservative syndicated columnist, 4/19/06

WHAT ABOUT CASUALTIES?

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03

"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?

"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03

"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03

"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03

"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03

"Our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days... Now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad... The odds are there's going to be a war and it's going to be not for very long."
- Former President Bill Clinton, 3/6/03

"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03
 

cutterone

Well-known member
The truth is that if you are going to fight a street war, a jungle war, or put down a riot on "their" turf and your number one concern is colateral damage then your gonna get hurt bad and probably not win. In war, stopping a bully or a riot crowd means win at any and all costs. There is no playing fair, or dialog, or diplomacy - you hit them with the biggest and badest thing you have and end it! Now!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

Unforgettable words from King Georges Economic Advisors in his Court of Fools

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02


"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02
--------------------------------------------------------------

The US budget for Iraq in FY 2007 came to $4,988/Iraqi. This is triple Iraq's per-person GDP. It's like spending $121,000 per person ($484,000 per family of 4) in the US. Why not just bribe the whole country?


As of today the cost of the war to the US taxpayers- and the reconstruction we're paying for is $552,065,000,000--Thats over $552 BILLION...But chicken feed to elitist neocons :roll: :( :mad: ....And the estimates are with the continuing costs- it will now amount to over $3 TRILLION dollars....

Isn't it great we have an Admiral, who is Joint Chiefs Chairman- and a candidate for President that are asking questions, and looking at alternatives- rather than blindly leaping again without looking- and furthering the ruin of our economy..
 

fff

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

Unforgettable words from King Georges Economic Advisors in his Court of Fools

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02


"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02
--------------------------------------------------------------

The US budget for Iraq in FY 2007 came to $4,988/Iraqi. This is triple Iraq's per-person GDP. It's like spending $121,000 per person ($484,000 per family of 4) in the US. Why not just bribe the whole country?


As of today the cost of the war to the US taxpayers- and the reconstruction we're paying for is $552,065,000,000--Thats over $552 BILLION...But chicken feed to elitist neocons :roll: :( :mad: ....And the estimates are with the continuing costs- it will now amount to over $3 TRILLION dollars....

Isn't it great we have an Admiral, who is Joint Chiefs Chairman- and a candidate for President that are asking questions, and looking at alternatives- rather than blindly leaping again without looking- and furthering the ruin of our economy..

And yet you still have people posting on this board who will believe whatever comes out of the White House or this Administration as the truth. Though not a lot of them, there are really stupid people in the world.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
fff said:
Oldtimer said:
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

Unforgettable words from King Georges Economic Advisors in his Court of Fools

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02


"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02
--------------------------------------------------------------

The US budget for Iraq in FY 2007 came to $4,988/Iraqi. This is triple Iraq's per-person GDP. It's like spending $121,000 per person ($484,000 per family of 4) in the US. Why not just bribe the whole country?


As of today the cost of the war to the US taxpayers- and the reconstruction we're paying for is $552,065,000,000--Thats over $552 BILLION...But chicken feed to elitist neocons :roll: :( :mad: ....And the estimates are with the continuing costs- it will now amount to over $3 TRILLION dollars....

Isn't it great we have an Admiral, who is Joint Chiefs Chairman- and a candidate for President that are asking questions, and looking at alternatives- rather than blindly leaping again without looking- and furthering the ruin of our economy..

And yet you still have people posting on this board who will believe whatever comes out of the White House or this Administration as the truth. Though not a lot of them, there are really stupid people in the world.

The problem is this administration forgot the philosophies of Abraham Lincoln- and went straight to the progandist teachings of Nazi Germany--and there are still some brainwashed by that propoganda machine... :(


I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.
Abraham Lincoln


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
 

fff

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The problem is this administration forgot the philosophies of Abraham Lincoln- and went straight to the progandist teachings of Nazi Germany--and there are still some brainwashed by that propoganda machine... :(

Yes, it boggles the mind that in spite of all the times they were wrong, well over 50% of Republicans still support Bush! Thankfully, the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans is getting smaller and smaller. :D

From May 2008:

Despite a record in office comprised of one abysmal failure after another, the fact that George Bush still has the support of 60 percent of Republicans strains credulity. There is a glimmer of hope in this new Gallup number, however, because it represents a slight drop in support for Bush among GOP dead-enders:

Bush’s approval rating in his party has fallen, with 6-in-10 Republicans approving of the job he’s doing, a Gallup poll indicates.

Throughout his presidency, Bush averaged 85 percent approval among Republicans, including 92 percent during his first term and 77 percent in his second term until the 60 percent registered in the latest survey, the Gallup poll released Thursday indicated…

Pollsters at the Princeton, N.J., company said lower support among Republicans is the main reason behind the drop in Bush’s overall rating. His approval ratings among Democrats and independents were low already.

The culprit for the decline in Bush’s overall job approval rating could be rising gas prices, which historically weigh down presidential approval ratings, pollsters said.

Last month, Bush — whose overall approval rating hovers around 28 percent — added two more metrics to his record as the Worst President Ever: He became the most disliked president in the history of the Gallup poll. And, after accruing 39 months without the approval of a majority of Americans, he became the president with the longest disapproval record.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/05/08/poll-bush-support-drops-slightly-in-gop/
 

fff

Well-known member
hotdryplace said:
So, OLD TIMER, 3f's, being the greatist military geniuses since Napoleon died, where would you have chosen to fight Al Qaeda.

Where they were/are located: Afghanistan. Tora Bora sounds good. Too bad Bush let him go there. :cry:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
fff said:
hotdryplace said:
So, OLD TIMER, 3f's, being the greatist military geniuses since Napoleon died, where would you have chosen to fight Al Qaeda.

Where they were/are located: Afghanistan. Tora Bora sounds good. Too bad Bush let him go there. :cry:

Yep- your right fff-- even the Iraqi Parliament members testifying in front of Congress said they had NO Al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion- and that what is causing them to show up now and recruiting them as freedom fighters from around the world- is the fact the country is under occupation by foreign troops...
They said that when the foreign occupation troops are gone- the violence and foreign freedomfighters will disappear too......
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
If after more than 5,000 years, they won't accept Americans there, the warlords in Iraq damn sure won't accept a bunch of wahabbi's there. So long as we are the enemy, the old adage of the enemy of my enemy is my friend......when we leave, they kill each other......and if the winner exports terrorism we should shock and awe his ass.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
All the captured Al Qaeda pamphlets and materials have said they know they can't militarily beat the US- but they can wreck our economy-- and bring down the country that way...

Too bad King George can't read...



Bush accomplishes mission for Osama bin Laden

Saturday, July 5, 2008
In 1998 Osama bin Laden complained that Americans have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims because they purchased oil from Muslim nations at low prices. Interestingly, he said that oil should cost $144 a barrel, which is just what it costs now.

So what did bin Laden have to do to get the price of oil to increase 13 times in the last 10 years? One month after 9/11, the New York Times wrote about nightmare scenarios that would do this, and one of them included the US attacking Iraq.

Also contributing to the high price of oil is the collapsing of the value of the US dollar, encouraged by the economic policies of the Bush administration.

In testimony to Congress a month ago, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security put it this way:

"I would like to impress upon this Committee that $144 a barrel oil will be perceived as a victory for the Jihadist movement and a reaffirmation that the economic warfare component of its campaign against the West is a resounding success. There is no need to elaborate on the implications of such a victory in terms of loss of U.S. prestige and our ability to prevail in the Long War of the 21st century."


Or, to put it in far blunter terms, Osama bin Laden can now say “Mission Accomplished”.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/05/bin-laden-144-oil/


US military fuel consumption increased to 144 million barrels. This is about 40 million barrels more than the average peacetime military usage.

By the way, 144 million barrels makes 395 000 barrels per day, almost as much as daily energy consumption of Greece.

The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
tr080707.gif


This would be funnier if it wasn't true- and the fact that GW wasn't so dumb he can't figure out he's played right into their hands.....


Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S.

Monday, November 1, 2004 Posted: 8:07 PM EST (0107 GMT)

(CNN) -- The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy.

Al-Jazeera aired portions of the videotape Friday but released the full transcript of the entire tape on its Web site Monday.

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
On Iran, top military officer sounds like Obama
Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen urges diplomacy, not use of force



By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
updated 2:05 p.m. MT, Thurs., July. 3, 2008


WASHINGTON - It could turn out to be one of the most significant comments of the 2008 campaign — but coming just ahead of a holiday weekend, it isn’t getting much notice.

Upon his return from a visit to Israel and Europe, the nation’s highest ranking military officer warned Wednesday that a military strike on Iran would be a very bad idea.

“This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable,” said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen.

He added pointedly, “we haven't had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time,” seeming to imply that the Bush administration should be talking to the Iranian government.

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has said that if elected, he would begin talks with Iran, without any precondition.

The Bush administration has insisted that before talks can begin, Iran must cease its nuclear enrichment — a step toward building nuclear weapons.

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain has said that his rival's willingness to hold direct talks, without preconditions, reveals "the depth of Sen. Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment.”

Adm. Mullen, much like Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, is one of those powerful unelected officials whose words could, at times, have as much effect on the campaign as Obama and McCain themselves.

It’s unusual for a military officer, especially the nation’s highest ranking one, to warn in such explicit terms of potential military action and to so emphatically call for diplomacy.

“What struck me about the comments was that he called for dialogue with Iran in his preliminary statement, even before he was responding to (reporters’) questions,” said Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Alterman pointed to Mullen’s opening statement in which he said, “I'm convinced a solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure. There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level.”

Not ruling out use of military force
President Bush, McCain, and Obama, all say they would not rule out the use of military force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

But Mullen appeared to be edging toward saying that military action, either by Israel or the United States, or both, would be catastrophic.

He also warned that the United States would be hard pressed to conduct operations against Iran, given the commitment of tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“From the United States' perspective, the United States' military perspective, in particular, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us,” Mullen told reporters. “That doesn't mean we don't have capacity or reserve, but that would really be very challenging.”

And, he added, “The consequences of that (military action) sometimes are very difficult to predict.”

Mullen explained, “Just about every move in that part of the world is a high-risk move. And that's why I think it's so important that the international piece, the financial piece, the diplomatic piece, the economic piece be brought to bear with a level of intensity that resolves this.”

The Israeli air force staged a large-scale drill last month that some observers saw as a warning of a possible Israeli attack on Iran.

But Mullen assured reporters Wednesday that “the Israeli press reported fairly widely that…those exercises were planned and routine.”


In 1981, the Israeli air force destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. The Israeli government believed Saddam Hussein's regime was planning to use the plant to make nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel.

An attack on Iranian nuclear sites could cause the Iranian regime to attack shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s total daily oil demand is carried.

Oil prices hit a record high of nearly $146 a barrel on Thursday. As Americans drive during this July 4 vacation, one reason they're paying more than $4.50 a gallon in some parts of the country is the growing tension over Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in an interview with The Associated Press Wednesday that the United States and Israel would not risk such an attack.

“The Israeli government is facing a political breakdown within itself and within the region, so we do not foresee such a possibility for that regime to resort to such craziness," Mottaki said. “The United States, too, is not in a position where it can engage in, take another risk in the region.”

In Congress, some members have expressed their fear that the Bush administration might launch a unilateral attack on Iran.

But last year the House rejected, by a vote of 288 to 136, an amendment offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D- Ore., that would have prohibited funds being used to take military action against Iran without specific authorization from Congress — unless Iran had first attacked the United States.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25515357/

Just wondering OT? How's this working out for ya? Just yesterday the Dems want to have some hearings on the incompetency of the nuclear talks with Iran.

Been 5 years and nothing is done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
2009 US Admiral Mullen: Iran regime's nuclear bomb would be "calamitous"

NCRI - Admiral Mike Mullen, U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said Thursday the consequences of Iran regime acquiring a nuclear weapon would be "calamitous" and major powers must act together to prevent it, Reuters reported.

Admiral Mike Mullen's remarks came a day after Iran regime test-launched "Sejil 2" (Sijil 2) missile which could carry nuclear warhead as the part of the clerical regime's drive to obtain nuclear weapons.

Mullen told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "I'm one who believes that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is calamitous for the region and for the world."

"Major leaders, internationally, have got to come together to arrest this growth or the long-term downside for the people in the world is really, really tragic and drastic," Mullen said.

on one hand you have Iranian madman with a nuke... or two..

on the other you have a bunch of Arabs fighting each other in the destabilized middle east..

which would you rather have happen?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Detonating the IND in Midtown positions the bomb where the largest number of people would be located, in the many skyscrapers that house the city’s offices. Assume the IND is detonated outside the Empire State Building at 11:45 a.m. Assume that the weapon is a 150-kiloton HEU gun-type bomb. Damage estimates can be scaled down to approximate damage and casualties should the bomb be a lower-yield weapon. Assume the day is the beautiful day that 9-11 was – clear and cool, few clouds in the sky, with a light wind from the east. Assume the population density is uniform, with an average of 125,000 people per square mile. Assume the bomb’s shock wave spreads out evenly, not affected by the structures.

1 second after detonation

Within the first second, a shock wave with an overpressure of 20 psi (pounds per square inch) extends four-tenths of a mile from ground zero. This destroys the Empire State Building and all other buildings within that radius, including Madison Square Garden, Penn Station and the New York Public Library. The reinforced steel in the skyscrapers does nothing to support them. Everything within the first four-tenths of a mile from ground zero is reduced to a pile of debris hundreds of feet deep in places. No one in this area survives or even knows what happened to them. The blast kills somewhere between 75,000 and 100,000 people instantly. Those outside in direct line with the blast are vaporized from the heat. Those inside the buildings who survive the blast are killed as the buildings collapse.

A mushroom cloud and fireball expand upward. Instantly, all communications that depend on this area for broadcast stop. National television stations and hundreds of radio channels are instantly off the air. Cell phones throughout the region malfunction. New York City drops off the world communication map. It is not like 9-11, where the rest of the world could switch on their televisions and watch live what was happening.

4 seconds after detonation

The shock wave extends for at least a mile with an overpressure of 10 psi at the periphery of this radius. Out to the edge of this ring, all concrete and steel-reinforced commercial buildings are destroyed or so severely damaged that they begin to collapse. The few buildings at the edge of this ring that remain standing have their interiors destroyed. Many of those within still-standing buildings are protected enough to survive the initial blast but are killed by flying debris. As the shock wave spreads out, an additional 300,000 people are killed and 100,000 more are injured. Almost no one in this ring escapes injury. Those below ground in the subways will escape this first blast with few injuries, though the loss of electricity may shock the cars to a stop. Blocked exits may trap all subway passengers underground indefinitely.

All power in New York City goes out or experiences difficulty. Telephone service stops. There is no radio or television from New York City and no information passing to the outside world about the damage or casualties.

6 seconds after detonation

The shock wave expands to 1.5 miles from ground zero. The pressure at the edge of this ring has dropped to an overpressure of 5 psi, enough force to severely damage steel-reinforced commercial buildings. The damage spreads to Carnegie Hall, the Lincoln Center and the Queensboro Bridge. Gone are Grand Central Station and the Met Life Building. The Chrysler Building is gone, as are virtually all the name-recognized buildings along Park Avenue and Fifth Avenue that surround what only six seconds ago was the Waldorf Hotel. The thermal pulse kills another 30,000 people who were in direct sight of the blast, including virtually everyone on the street at the time of the blast. Some 500,000 people in this ring are dead. Another 190,000 within buildings are killed by flying debris or are crushed when the buildings collapse. Of those buildings left standing, about 5 percent burst into flames instantly; within 24 hours virtually all buildings that remain standing catch fire. A conflagration begins at city center.

The outside world has virtually no contact with New York City. Panic begins to spread around the country as people watching television or listening to radio begin to realize there is no television or radio available. The first six seconds is too short an interval for government officials in Washington, D.C., to have any real idea what has happened to New York.

10 seconds after detonation

The shock wave expands to a radius of 2.5 miles, but it still carries an impact with an overpressure of 2 psi at the periphery, enough to cause varying amounts of damage to steel-reinforced buildings. An estimated 235,000 additional people die instantly as this ring expands, with an additional 500,000 casualties as the casualty ratio begins to exceed the kill ratio. Those wearing darker clothes are more severely burned from the thermal pulse. Combustible materials instantly burst into flame. Within 24 hours all buildings that remain standing in this radius will begin to burn out of control as all water service has ceased to function.

16 seconds after detonation

The shock wave expands to a radius of 4 miles with an overpressure force of 1 psi at the edge. Steel-reinforced buildings at the periphery suffer relatively little damage, but as far south as Battery Park and the Statue of Liberty the damage is still significant. The impact is being felt across the East River into Queens and across the Hudson River into New Jersey. Buildings north of Central Park are hit by enough force to cause flying debris and severe structural damage. Now the deaths and casualties are spread across 30 square miles. There are many fewer deaths in the ring that stretches from 2.5 miles (the 10-second impact periphery) and 5 miles (the 16-second periphery). An additional 30,000 in this further extension of the blast are severely injured.

Radioactive fallout reaching across into New Jersey will begin within 24 hours to produce mild sickness for virtually everyone who was outside when the IND was detonated and many inside. The initial symptoms will be vomiting, diarrhea and fatigue. Over the next few days as many as 30 percent of the population with a 10-mile range of the blast will begin to die from a combination of burns, infection and radiation damage to tissue, bone and blood cells. The radiation effects will sweep across New Jersey for dozens of miles, with some seriously affected by radiation sickness as far away as 100 miles from ground zero.

My brother lives about ten miles from city center.. My son lives about 90 miles from NYC, my wife and I live about a 120 miles from NYC.

By the end of the day

More than 1.5 million people are dead in New York City and another 1.5 million severely injured. Fewer than 25 percent of the injured will survive longer than a week. The old will die first, along with the very young. Those survivors who can move around will not know what to do.

In the span of less than one hour, the nation’s largest city will have been virtually wiped off the map. Removal of debris will take several years, and recovery may never fully happen. The damage to the nation’s economy will be measured in the trillions of dollars, and the loss of the country’s major financial and business center may reduce America immediately to a second-class status. The resulting psychological impact will bring paralysis throughout the land for an indefinite period of time. The president may not be able to communicate with the nation for days, even weeks, as television and radio systems struggle to come back on line.

No natural or man-made disaster in history will compare with the magnitude of damage that has been done to New York City in this one horrible day. http://www.wnd.com/2005/04/29862/

so that is what Adm Mullen thinks is "calamitous"

I won't say what I think of his opinions.. but from his re-enforced bunker,..I am sure he and the president will be thinking about creating a bit of instability in Iran..


if you think this will not happen.. this is a description of what would happen with an improvised (homemade) nuclear weapon..

an Iranian lab built weapon launched from our coast would be much worse.. and would include more cities.

so if you think this will not happen..


Obama said:
“Russia’s actions are a problem, they don’t pose the No. 1 national security threat to the United States. I continue to be much more concerned, when it comes to our security, with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan,” he added.

I guess he must have read that briefing..

and like the fort Hood shooter, or the Boston bombers.. and even the 9-11 hijackers these reports were dismissed by federal law enforcement..



so if you ask me ..my vote is for a bit of instability in Iran.. is better then them getting a nuke..
 
Top