Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Crime of the Century: Are Bush & Cheney Planning Early Attack on Iran?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Wiley50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 05:18 PM
Original message
Crime of the Century: Are Bush & Cheney Planning Early Attack on Iran?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_dave_lin_061223...

Crime of the Century: Are Bush & Cheney Planning Early Attack on Iran?

Back on October 9, I wrote in The Nation that it looked like the Bush-Cheney gang, worried about the November election, was gearing up for an unprovoked attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, with a carrier strike group led by the USS Eisenhower being ordered to depart a month early from Norfolk, VA to join the already-on-station USS Enterprise. That article was based on reports from angry sailors based on the Eisenhower who had leaked word of their mission.

There was, thankfully, no attack on Iran before Election Day, but it is starting to look like I may have been right about the plan after all, but wrong about the timing.

As the threat of a catastrophic US election-eve attack on Iran started to look increasingly likely, reports began to trickle out of the Pentagon that the generals and admirals were protesting. They knew that the US military is stretched to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that a war with Iran would be a disaster of historic proportions. To bolster their blocking efforts, the Iraq Study Group, headed by Republican fixer and former Secretary of State (under Bush Pere) James Baker, which had been slated to release its report on what to do about Iraq in January, 2007, pushed forward its report. Baker, together with co-chair Lee Hamilton, went prematurely public with the group's conclusion that the Iraq war was a failure, and that the US should be trying to negotiate with Iran, not attack that country.

That joint effort appeared to have blocked Bush and Cheney's war plan, but the reprieve may have only been temporary.

It now appears that the idea of attacking Iran is again moving forward. The Eisenhower strike force, armed with some 800 Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as a fleet of strike aircraft, and already on station in the Arabian Sea for over a month and a half, has moved into the Persian Gulf. A second carrier group, led by the USS Stennis, is steaming toward the Gulf, too. Already in position are three expeditionary strike groups and an amphibious warship, all suitable for landing Marines on Iranian beaches. On December 20, the New York Times, citing Pentagon sources, reported that both Britain and the U.S. are moving additional naval forces into the region "in a display of military resolve toward Iran that will come as the United Nations continues to debate possible sanctions against the country." (We've all seen what "displays of force" by the Bush administration actually turn out to be.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kimmerspixelated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes, I think
that it will probably happen, sadly. And soon, because the new congress will be up and running momentarily. PEACE ON EARTH...PLEASE!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. The NeoConvicts have to be removed from power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. We've all seen this movie before
so we are well on our way to deepen the disaster in the ME
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
35. Yes, in Somalia for example.
GHW Bush sent troops into Somalia with a month left in his term.

GW Bush doen't care if he creates a disaster. He will be out of office collecting the profits and somebody else (Democrats) will have to clean up the mess, if possible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. They just announced on AAR that we have imposed economic
sanctions on Iran. That could be a start of hostilities between them and us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellenfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. this should put impeachment back on the table. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
6.  I tend to think it will happen
The main reason why is because there is a continued buildup of a fleet and more on the way .

This seems to be the way forward and not for Iraq . This has been going on long enough and continues to look more and more likey and bushs way to remain in control reguardless of what anyone else wants .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shireen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. wish the military would just go on strike ...
can you imagine them holding picket signs outside the Pentagon, chanting "no more war!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nancyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. De ja vu all over again.
I have the same dreadful feeling that they will launch an attack on Iran very soon. They are behaving like the cornered rats that they are. As for the military saying "no more war"...you've got to be kidding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
westerebus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. Amphib assault, don't think so.
To assault the Iranians from a beach head will require every unit not in Iraq or Afghanistan for the mission. The Marines do not have any spare combat units due to their unique mission capabilities and where they are stationed. In other words if something else breaks outside of the Persian Gulf, the Marines would go.
The Army's heavy units need to be prepositioned across the Gulf for a ferry ride over. I haven't seen the Saudis inviting us in. The Straight of Hormuz is the shortest line of travel for heavy armor. Heavily defended by the Iranians.
The Army National Guard and Reserve have not been ordered to gear up,pack up,and ship out. That's not something you can hide. The Army is pretty burnt out equipment wise.
Limited strike with cruise missiles and air strikes won't do much. We can destroy their civilian infrastructure to a fair degree but then what? Do you want to stop oil flow out of Iran? Better talk to China and Europe about that one.
If you think Iraq and Afghanistan are a mess now put 100,000 Iranian Republican Guards into the mix. That will leave Iran with 200,000 + troops to defend their own country with.
Bush might go for air strikes if the Saudis fly point on the mission or if the Israelis worked a deal with the Sunni potentates to take out the Iranian atomic facilities.
The enemy of my enemy is my brother. I don't doubt Bushchenny won't try if things get to hot for them.
The curse of:"may you live in interesting times" holds true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PDJane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I don't think that an amphibious assault
Is what they have in mind.

They are going to bomb Iran, and the talk on the neocon side has been of using Nukes.

I think that Carter is quite correct. The biggest threat to the non-proliferation treaty is the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
westerebus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. Neo con wish list.
I don't believe any senior officer will allow the use of nukes unless we are attacked with NBC weapons. The risks are to great.
We could have used them (one) against Saddam in a surgical strike in 1991. We didn't. The North Koreans are a better target for nukes than the Iranians.
Sustained conventional strikes with air and missiles that cause damage just short of a nuke is within our capacity. No one else in the neighborhood has the capacity or means to maintain that intense an air campaign.
If its a nuke, that leaves the nation state of Israel. Unless they are willing to nuke the rest of the arabic world, I don't see that happening.
There is lots of posturing and proclamations by the Bush WH and neocons. The last wish list of the neo cons is a fiasco and deteriorating rapidly.
I'm not overly optimistic about Bush's intension's given the current disaster in Iraq. The president serves the people,not the other way around. Time for congress to force him to request a declaration of war for Iraq. No request, no declaration, no funds, shorter war. He will send a supplemental bill to congress for Iraq, attach a war powers act provision to the that one.
How about a war tax? 75% of all assets,income,stocks,bonds,etc on those with $3 million in total holdings. Seems fair to me. Refundable when Bush resigns. Let him veto that.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cool user name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-26-06 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #21
69. Welcome to DU, Westerebus
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiley50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. My Guess: The Israelis Go First
When Iran retaliates
then we pounce

It's sick
Just sick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #13
44. I don't think the Israelis would go along with that.
Why should they set themselves up for retaliation? If I were to take off my tinfoil hat, I think the voices would tell me to expect a "false-flag" attack on the US, followed instantly by an air and missile attack on Iran. With some nukes launched at targets far enough away from the oil fields.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
58. Combined operation, I think. the Marines are in place....
I posted this earlier at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The Marine units mentioned below are Special Operations Ready units.... fast land vehicles and hovercraft landing vehicles.

I think the plan involves vertical envelopment from the helo carriers and some amphib ops aimed at specific targets like communication centers. All this, of course, after some serious bombing and cruise missile work.
- - - - - - -
I sent this to some friends in late October....

The stuff below the line of pluses is my own tally, so if the roster is wrong, it's my fault, not DEBKA's. Are there any more?
- - - -
DEBKAfile reports: The American Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group joins
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14802
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3401 October 20, 2006

Tuesday, Oct. 17, the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group steamed into the Persian Gulf to join the US naval, air and marine concentration piling up opposite Irans shores. It consists of the amphibious transport dock USS Nashville, the guided-missile destroyers USS Cole and USS Bulkeley, the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea, the attack submarine USS Albuquerque, and the dock landing ship USS Whidbey Island.

The Iwo Jima group is now cruising 60 km from Kuwait off Irans coast. As DEBKAfile and DEBKA-Net-Weekly reported exclusively two weeks ago, three US naval task forces will be in place opposite Iran in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea by October 21. The other two are the USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group and the USS Enterprise Strike Group.

+ + + + + +
That means the US has the following within easy striking distance of Iran (and in harm's way from Iran's defenses):
Two aircraft carriers... each with an entire air wing aboard.
One helicopter aircraft carrier with 2500 Marines aboard.
Three landing ships with 1000 Marines aboard each.
Three landing ships with 500 Marines aboard each.
Three guided missile cruisers. (cruise missiles)
Six guided missile destroyers. (cruise missiles)
Three attack submarines. (cruise missiles)
Miscellaneous minesweepers and supply ships.


Here's the roster: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy /
Eisenhower Strike Group
CVN 69 Dwight D. Eisenhower
Carrier Air Wing 7
DESRON Destroyer Squadron 28
CG 68 Anzio
DDG 61 Ramage
DDG 87 Mason
SSN 750 Newport News
T-AOE 8 Arctic (Supply & Tactical)

Enterprise Strike Group
Carrier Air Wing 1
Destroyer Squadron 2
CVN 65 Enterprise
CG 55 Leyte Gulf
DDG 74 McFaul
FFG 47 Nicholas
SSN 757 Alexandria
T-AOE 6 Supply (Tactical)

Iwo Jima Strike Group
Helicopter Aircraft Carrier Iwo Jima
LPD 13 Nashville
LSD 41 Whidbey Island
CG 58 Philippine Sea
DDG 84 Bulkeley
DDG 67 Cole
SSN 706 Albuquerque
24th Marine Expeditionary Unit

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
11. The Generals and Admirals need to start protesting LOUDER
...and the M$M needs to get the word out better than just on DU and opednews ! A march on the Pentagon, '60s - style, needs to be under consideration and SOON.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiley50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Can We Levitate the Pentagon again for ABBIE? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
12. All they want is an attack from Iran. Real or faked.
And then it's "war". And then Bush can do ANYTHING.

Iran, here me- Don't do anything.

I suspect there will be a phonied attack on our troops. And then Bush will go forward at least until we figure out that it was fake, which by then will be too late.


Am I the bearer of negativity, or what? (It keeps me from crying.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #12
30. I was thinking the same
Almost every war in recent history has started with an act of "defense" (even Hitler faked a Polish attack on his forces to justify invading Poland). We know that the CIA (during the JFK admin)suggested faking an attack from Cuba to justify an invasion (and they were talking about US casualties too, luckily Kennedy told them to go to hell) so the precedent is there and we know the Bushistas have learned their lessons from the Nazis (not talking about fascism, although that applies too, talking about message management).

My guess is, Iran will protest the sanctions, the Bushies will complain that the sanctions aren't working, there'll be some either exagerated or outright fake act of aggression from Iran (possibly military but more likely diplomatic) sometime around the new year and war will either be underway or in the final stages of launch before the swearing in of the new Congress (which Bush/Rove may well find a way to block).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #30
42. Scott Ritter says it's all about regime change. (See this thread.)
Edited on Sun Dec-24-06 11:24 AM by Gregorian
They've confused a threat to the U.S. interests with a threat to the people of this country. And they are not the same. The imminent threats to corporate interests may exist, but there is no imminent threat to the people of America. They've used it to sell their wars. And the bottom line is, it's all about regime change. The president of Iran is a useless mouthpiece. The real leaders of Iran are the Supreme Leader Comeheini (sorry about accuracy there), and one or two others. And those real leaders have asked for peace with Israel, and to put their nuclear energy development on the table for review. But Bush won't have any part of anything but regime change. This is a truly dangerous administration.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geardaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #30
43. Don't forget the Maine.
That was the classic fake/misrepresented attack that led us into the Spanish-American War that gave us Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The Maine blew up, but probably not from enemy fire. It is suspected that a boiler exploded by accident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. Forgot the Maine
Since I'm a Brit, we didn't get taught that in schools.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
14. We've seen it coming for awhile now
Bush's Inconceivable Interest in Iran Sat Apr-01-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Senior U.S. Officials Want to Hit Iran Tue Apr-04-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Larisa Alexandrovna: CHENEY TAPS IRANIAN ARMS DEALER FOR IRAN TALKS Thu Apr-20-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Seymour Hersh said something startling about Rumsfeld on Democracy Now Fri Aug-18-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

So former DLC, PNAC member Abram Shulsky feeding Cheney info on Iran? Sat Aug-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Fuck. Iran has started "war games." Escalation may only be expected. Sun Aug-20-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Attack on Iran is Coming Sun Aug-27-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"Grave threat". Yes, it's deja vu all over again. Thu Aug-31-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

UN attacks US nuclear report on Iran erroneous misleading unsubstantiated Sun Sep-17-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

We Are Conducting Military Operations Inside Iran Right Now Tue Sep-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Navy told: Prepare to blockade Iran by Oct 1 Mon Sep-18-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Pentagon Iran Office Mimics Former Iraq Office Wed Sep-20-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This is the largest massing of military power in the region, and it is gathering for a reason. Sat Nov-18-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Seymour Hersh: Cheney Says 'Whether Or Not Dems Win-NO STOPPING Military Option With Iran'Sun Nov-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Does anyone still believe the US will launch a full scale invasion of Iran? Mon Dec-04-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Saudi clerics rally support for Sunnis and Saudi ambassador Abruptly Resigns Tue Dec-12-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Act III in a Tragedy of Many Parts - The US Occupation of Iraq Sun Dec-17-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Century Foundation Iran White Paper Series Fundamentalists, Pragmatists and the Rights of the Nation Tue Dec-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Oh shit Tue Dec-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
15. Now they're planning the crime of the century
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Moy513mIeB0&eurl=

Now they're planning the crime of the century
Well what will it be?
Read all about their schemes and adventuring
It's well worth a fee
So roll up and see
And they rape the universe
How they've gone from bad to worse
Who are these men of lust, greed, and glory?
Rip off the masks and let see.
But that's no right - oh no, whats the story?
There's you and there's me
That can't be right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
17. If this occurs
it will be incumbent upon the US populous to shut down the government. Things have already spiraled way beyond what is acceptable with very little resistance from congress or The People
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #17
26. I agree wholeheartedly, but how to build the fires under people?
People are still at the grumbling stage, rather than the action stage.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brettdale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
18. They wont attack Iran
It would be political suicide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #18
31. When (political) death is inevitible, suicide seems less drastic n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #18
39. I Honestly Don't Think They Care.
But I am praying you're "right!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlienAvatar Donating Member (167 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
56. I tend to agree with you
Edited on Sun Dec-24-06 06:42 PM by AlienAvatar
It's just too nutty of an idea, even for Bush and his handlers. I just don't think it will happen.

If it did, I think it would be time for a real rebellion in this country. Impeachment followed by removal from office, and if that didn't happen then an armed rebellion leading to a coup.

That last part is fantasy, but one I would support if it became neccessary. All of this is just getting to be too much. I hope to god that bush and his pals get everything they deserve and that I live to see it. They are bad people. Simple as that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
many a good man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
19. Mad Dog Bush is our only bargaining chip
Iran has been the biggest winner in the Iraq War Disaster and they hold ALL the marbles. We can't negotiate with them because we have NOTHING to offer.

Saudis are demanding that we don't let the Sunnis get exterminated in Iraq or let Iran become a Shiite nuclear hegemon. If we don't obey it's all over.

The only bargaining chip we have is Bush's madness. Yes, he's mad enough to attack Iran. Yes, Poppy could probably stop him, but Poppy's beholden to the Saudis.

It's the only thing we've got, and it might be enough to bring Iran to the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
20. I've said this before: SOMEONE is going to have to say NO to the
delusional idiot.

And I'm thinking it's going to have to be the military -- Joint Chiefs or someone else, I don't care. Just do it.

I'm not talking about a coup, but rather just a sit-in or something. A small mutiny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
westerebus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. It's called refusing an illegal order.
Its on the books and taught to every one who wears this nations' military uniform. There are discussions going on right now and have been for some time. Its not a coup to refuse an order you believe is illegal. Its not a mutiny to refuse an order that you believe to be illegal. It does take balls to tell the CIC "not no, sir; but no fu..ing way, sir".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. I suspect Abizaid said no way SIR
and got canned...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #22
32. Are they still teaching that?
I'm surprised (in a good way) if they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sailor for Warner Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Everybody knows that
It is part of General Military Training (GMT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #33
48. I thought that had been abandoned
The teaching that is, not the rule. Naive of me but I had assumed that if someone at, say, Abu Ghraib, had been aware that they could refuse an illegal order, they would have done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shipwack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. Actualy, there were peopel at Abu Ghraib that refused an illegal order.
One of the men in a K-9 unit refused to use his dog on a prisoner because it was an illegal order... I'm proud to say that it was an enlisted sailor.

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. Bravo for him! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #22
41. Very good. Thanks for the insight and context.
ILLEGAL order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-26-06 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #22
68. Yep. When I went through BCT we were taught it was our DUTY
to refuse an illegal order.

Of course, Carter was President then....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddysmellgood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
23. When they realized that they could not take out the nuke program with air strikes,
they floated "small" nucyooler "tipped" bunker busters, "while quantities last, get yours today". When that did not fly, they started preparing for the air strike/ground campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
24. Kicked...
and reccommended!
Impeach the bastards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just-plain-Kathy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
25. .
Since 9-11 we've seen TV ads recruiting for the Army and National Guard; now theyre starting to advertise for the Navy and Navy Seals. Iraq is a landlocked country. Iran has a long gulf border. Bush will take us to war whether we like it or not.

When do you think hell start this war? Will it be during the holidays, while most of us aren't paying attention? Or, will he'd wait until democrats are sworn in? This way he could flex his muscles and prove he is the ultimate decider.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sailor for Warner Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
28. Iran is doing a pretty good job at being provocative
Anyone who has transited the Strait of Hormuz can attest to that. They know exactly the game they are playing and they are playing it far better than us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #28
37. How dare they hold exersizes and patrol the area
Edited on Sun Dec-24-06 05:50 AM by rman
off their own coast.
It is rightfully US territory.

Now tell me again who's being provocative.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. The Strait of Hormuz looks like a trap that's ready snap. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sailor for Warner Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. Thats about the long and short of it
Dangerous
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sailor for Warner Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #37
47. Your post shows complete ignorance of freedom of the seas
The Strait of Hormuz is a legal Strait which vessels have the right to peacefully transit as US ships do. I have nearly been jackknifed in the Strait and have been harrased by helos and watched merchant vessels be provoked in the Strait as well. Can anyone who has gone through the SOH on a Navy vessel please back me up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #47
60. Just don't tell me Iran is being more provocative than the US
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shipwack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-26-06 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #47
65. Well, I didn't transit the Strait...
But they did like to play "chicken" last year, testing out the boundaries of the Iraqi oil rig security zones...

I agree, they are being provocative, though no more so than, say the Russians were during the cold war. It's dangerous, though. All it takes is a dumb/honest mistake on either side for things to escalate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
29. K/R
!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hideboh Donating Member (53 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
34. Eventually
Iran's nuclear facilities will be bombed into ashes.
It's just a matter of time at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oblivious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. The crazies are in control of the greatest destructive power the world has ever known.
Even democracy cannot stop them because they own the organs of propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
36. Some will say 'I told you so', but with no joy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
45. This article has been discredited
The Stennis is not steaming anywhere. 12-21-06 NYT
it was in BRemerton WA, getting ready for X-mas dinner.

The author also claims the Stennis is carrying over 400 additional Tomahawks,,,,thought the Stennis carries no Tomahawks launchers. & Apparently never hearing of this new invention called the

SUPPLY SHIP

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/12/23/11152/873/1...

Its Christmas time and all through the planet

Most carriers are all snug by their piers


Enjoy

Vigilance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sailor for Warner Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #45
51. And Im glad for it
Weve been snug at our pier for a record month
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doublethink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #45
53. Yea the Stennis hasn't left port .... yet......
But could see the high seas early anyway. From The Navy Times ...

Stennis group could leave early for gulf deployment
Extra strike group presence would send message to Iran



http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2438831.p...

The aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and its strike group are preparing to leave for the Persian Gulf as soon as the first week of January if ordered to do so, Pentagon sources say. -snip

The new reports appear to have a broader base of sourcing. The Associated Press cites a senior defense official. CBS News says its sources are military officers. And Thursday, The New York Times said the U.S. and Britain will begin moving additional warships into the Persian Gulf region in a display of military resolve, sourcing the plan to Pentagon and military officials. -snip

In addition to Stennis, other available carriers include the Japan-based Kitty Hawk, which operates on a more flexible schedule than U.S.-based carriers and just returned to its home port of Yokosuka on Dec. 10 with Carrier Air Wing 5 after a two-month Western Pacific cruise, and the Norfolk-based Enterprise, which along with Carrier Air Wing 1 remains in a surge duty status after its Nov. 18 return from a six-month deployment that included duty in the gulf. Also, the San Diego-based Ronald Reagan and its strike group, which in July returned from a deployment that included gulf duty, recently completed sustainment training and are ready for a short-notice deployment if called upon, officials say. -snip

The Navy could also launch the San Diego-based Nimitz, which in November completed the first phase of the normal three-phase pre-deployment training cycle. Nimitz has yet to regain its flight deck certification, but Navy officials say that could be accomplished en route to the Middle East. -snip

Along with the fact that the Dwight D. Eisenhower CSG arrived in the Persion Gulf just this last Dec 11th .... well we'll surely see where this is all going if anywhere at some point, sooner rather than later. Peace.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sailor for Warner Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
50. K/R
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
focusfan Donating Member (884 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
52. the s.o.b needs to be stopped
i hate George W I wish Congress would stop him and throw him
in jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chomp Donating Member (602 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
54. Right, this Iran thing again
Seems every few months one of these Iran articles appears and there's much wailing a gnashing of teeth on DU. Anyway.

This just ain't gonna happen.

There is precisely zero chance of an amphibious assault (nor any adventure involving American boots on ground). Zero chance. And an air strike is also so hugely unlikely as to be not worth considering.

There simply does not exist the political, finaincal, logistical or military wherewithall to do it. To which repeatedly comes the cry "These evil bastards will just do it anyway! They don't care!" Yeah, well nonsense.

Iraq has absolutely fisnished Bush's foreign adventures. He simply does not have the fundamental political power left to attack Iran. He would be totally isolted, would never get it through Congress, risks impeachment if he does it unilaterally and would have absolutely NO support from own party. Not to mention the generals or even the defence secretary. I mean Jesus, think about it. This guy is FININSHED...assigning mystical machiavellian powers to him is just too naive for words.

All that stuff puts an invasion off the table.

An air assault? Well, why? Why the fuck would he bother? He knows it would immediately make the Iraq mess 1000 times worse overnight!! I mean, why the fuck would he do that? It makes absolutey no sense. "He's so crazy and evil he doesn't care! It's all about the money and Haliburton!". Yawn. No it isn't. The laws of political gravity have not been forever altered by the Chimp. He's just another fucking hack politician who has reached the end of the road.

Aside from the politics of the thing, where would the money come from? How would he get it from congress? Where would the troops come from? How would Bush propose to deal logistically with the almost certain explaosion of violence in Iraq and god knows where else? Jesus, they are already struggling with milatary numbers.

These people are horrible fucking chancers and charlatans, but for the love of Jesus they are not alchemists.

Finally, someone posted earlier in the thread that "the Neo-Cons need to be removed". WTF?? They're all gone for God's sake!! They lost! Did you miss that bit? They fucking lost and now every one of them is baked. Except for Cheney of course, and that sorry old fucker is clinging on by his fingertips. Robert Gates is now a more powerful figure. If you think Cheney on his own has the power to pull the big levers any more, forget about it.

Anyway, whatever.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlienAvatar Donating Member (167 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #54
64. Well said eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-24-06 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
55.  As crazy as this sounds I still think an attack is possible
It seems some think this will never happen .
Well think about this , did we think two elections could be stolen , did we ever think we would be in this war in Iraq and for so long now , did we think after all bush and his gang of thugs have done would still be allowed to sit in the whitehouse ?

Would we have ever thought troops would be sent to fight without the funding for proper equipment as this still goes on .

Would we have ever dreamed we would watch our citizens drown and still to this day they are still forgotten ?

I never would have imagined this and I do feel for years now that there criminals do not care for their citizens and will put all effort into their gain no matter what we believe of no matter how we protest .

Bush has to know already impeachment is possible so why would he care if the attack on Iran would look .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #55
61. Of course it's possible ....
But will it be successful ?

How CAN it be ?

> Nuke the nuclear facilities, and a hundred million Persians pine for war ...

> Nuke all of Iran, and the fallout kills Israel too ...

> Commit to a conventional invasion, and die in the field, eventually ...

Iran could counterattack IN Iraq, and cause all hell to break loose ...

Honestly, given the track record of these bloodthirsty idiots, it is 'possible' they could attack ... but it is damn near impossible to imagine them 'winning' in Iran ...

Its ALL lose lose lose ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #61
62.  It won't be successful
I don't think this really matters to these murderers . It seems to be all about distraction and retaining power and of course oil price and control .

I don't they are looking for ground troops to pull this off . For all we know they already have a certian amount of contractors in Iran , I know they ahve been marking targets .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota_Lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
63. A DU'er recently posted that his step son's Xmas leave was suddenly canceled...
...and his Airborne unit was notified that they will leave Fort Bragg for Iraq January 4, 2007 or sooner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Seemed odd to me at the time that his unit's deployment was not planned further in advance. Is this SOP?

Is this part of Bushco's "surge" strategy or maybe beefing up for Iran?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-26-06 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
66. Someone wake up the Democratic Congress before it is too late.
Once they fuck the U.S. into yet another war, the "cut and run" lies will keep the Democrats on the run for another six years, and there will not be any U.S. left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-26-06 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
67. I have several friends with relatives being deployed to "War Games"
in the Gulf. Some of them as "infantry". What part does the infantry play in naval war games? I'm afraid that Bushco is going to try and provoke the Iranians into an "incident" that they can use as justification for an attack.

Pure speculation on my part, but it's not like it hasn't happened before.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 02nd 2014, 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC