You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #19: Oh yeah. Shoulda titled the OP: ''PRESCOTT BUSH EYED IRAQ'S OIL IN 1959.'' [View All]

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Oh yeah. Shoulda titled the OP: ''PRESCOTT BUSH EYED IRAQ'S OIL IN 1959.''
That Babs is something.



When a certain pre-teen I know heard what she said about the people from New Orleans living the high life in the Houston Astrodome, he said, "That is evil."

For those who agree, here's more from the OP:



...The sobering fact, already familiar to the Russians, is that bases for SAC use now practically circle the Northern Hemisphere. They are on the alert in many places, including Japan, Okinawa, Guam, the United States, Canada, Alaska, Greenland, England, Spain and North Africa, forming a trap with many triggers. An attack against any one of these bases would touch off the massed might of the others to destroy the war-making capacity of any nation attempting all-out aggression upon this country of the rest of the free world.

The demonstration at SAC should effectively dismiss from Soviet minds any speculation about the possibility of their gaining an advantage from all-out war any time soon. But we must face the fact that in a few years the Russians may be able to zero in our SAC bases with ballistic missiles. To drive this temptation out of their minds, we could show them other deterrents.

First, we could take a ride in one of our atomic-powered submarines. These can slither at startling speeds clear around the world without surfacing. The Soviet naval experts could observe the Nautiluss sonar pick up the sound of destroyers many miles distant, while her own turbines are detectable for only a few thousand yards. Wed show them that hunting these submarines to destroy them before they attack is like looking for a needle in a haystack; repeatedly in maneuvers they elude aircraft and, though submerged, outrun surface ships.

Then we could show our guests the U.S.S. Observation Island, a freighter which the Navy has converted into a testing ground for Polaris, the new atomic-armed ballistic missile fired from under water. Before the Soviet Union can have dependable intercontinental missiles in quantity, we will have Polaris ready. It meets virtually every test for the perfect deterrent: it is designed to reach almost any target in the Communist area, is highly immune to all forms of enemy attack, including ballistic missiles. No power on earth can prevent our nuclear subs from ringing Russia with a silent and deadly deterrent force.

Thus it should be obvious, as Gen. Nathan F. Twining, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has made clear, that with SAC we are strong enough now to deter an all-out attack, and that our deterrent power will be strengthened by the addition of Polaris in the near future.

While convincing our visitors of the insanity of all-out war, we could also show them the futility of starting limited war. To do this, we could usher them into twin-jet attack bombers, fly them off the Florida coast to the aircraft carrier Independence. They would land right on the deck, coming from 135 miles an hour to a full stop in three or four seconds. Such a carrier, of course, is escorted by the destroyers, cruisers and submarines of its task force. Few persons who have never actually set foot on one of these traveling armored cities have any conception of their versatility, striking power and mobility.

We would explain that the mission of our 14 carriers is to destroy targets from which an enemy can launch weapons dangerous to our Navysuch as submarine bases and airfields. Also, at the beginning of a nuclear war, they would help SAC pulverize other military targets. Four carriers in the Atlantic, eight in the Pacific and two in the Mediterranean, equipped with planes able to fly atomic bombs 1500 miles, can reach virtually any target.

Then we could demonstrate for the Soviet military leaders how our amphibious forces operate. In a mock exercise of rushing assistance to a third country under sudden attack, we would send out groups of Marines, delivered by helicopter and dispersed over a wide area, and followed up by more Marines making beach landings. One Soviet observer could land with them and be with the forward troops. He would see how this global Marine force uses close air support from carriers instead of artillery; the rocket-powered Bull Pup, a tactical missile that can be steered to hit precisely on enemy bunkers: and dozens of other ultra-modern techniques. Other observers on board ship would see how fast a carrier launches its striking power. Attack planes, more than half a hundred of them, catapult across the deck, one very few seconds, far faster than planes take off from land....

SOURCE:

By Prescott Bush
U.S. Senator from Connecticut;
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
The Readers Digest
July 1959 pp. 25-30





This fellah and his offspring really are a large reasons why we got to be vassals of the permawar economy.

PS: Since Riwalpindi, we really don't hear much on the telly anymore how Smirko lied to America regarding Iran and WMDs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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