Fifty US generals and admirals respond to Obama's Israel policy

[Rainsford]

well one thing is to have an opinion. another is to organize people into signing something. they WANT to sign it.

Of course they do...the Commander in Chief isn't doing exactly what they think he should be doing. Why would Generals and Admirals who AGREE with President Obama bother to publish something like this? They won...the President is doing what they want.

 

[nonlnear]

I can only imagine how many generals would sign a letter of vehement protest if we had a President who wanted to bring the size of the military down to sane levels... 😀

 

[Rainsford]

I can only imagine how many generals would sign a letter of vehement protest if we had a President who wanted to bring the size of the military down to sane levels... 😀

I would imagine it would be a lot...although I noticed that not many military folks got behind Republican efforts to continue to fund wasteful and pointless military programs that Secretary Gates wanted to axe.

 

[Noobtastic]

I wasn't saying that the point being expressed was wrong (although I personally believe it is, but that's another thread)...I was just objecting to the lazy-ass way the argument was made.

There are 4,000+ retired general officers, and about ~450 active at any given point.

So I agree, 50 isn't a lot.

But can you find 50 who disagree?

Support for Israel is pretty standard in military industry as the relationship is far more cooperative than other allies.

good luck finding 5 generals who are half as passionate as john foss who don't support israel.

 

[heyheybooboo]

...

It is a lot easier for Iran to make a suitcase nuke and give it to terrorists in lebanon. also, it would be very hard to prove it came from them

a suitcase nuke bomb is small enough to fit in a football sized locker.

if detonated in a major city such as tel aviv. hundreds of thousands would die.

they are rumored to be between equal to 10 tons to 1kt of tnt.

little boy was 15kt.

There is Incredible Fail here.

The level of your ignorance (or intellectual dishonesty) is off the charts.





--

 

[Freshgeardude]

There is Incredible Fail here.

The level of your ignorance (or intellectual dishonesty) is off the charts.





--

your post rebuffs my statements completely, with full details proving me otherwise.

 

[SandEagle]

There are 4,000+ retired general officers, and about ~450 active at any given point.

So I agree, 50 isn't a lot.

But can you find 50 who disagree?

Support for Israel is pretty standard in military industry as the relationship is far more cooperative than other allies.

good luck finding 5 generals who are half as passionate as john foss who don't support israel.

gee, i wonder how many of them are on the aipac payroll

 

[Lemon law]

Like I posted earlier, it costs 50 retired generals nothing to sign a glowing aipac form letter, and much the same can be said for various Senate or House resolutions.

But if Obama and our other allies demand that Israel stops settlements and starts moving forward towards a Palestinian State, the question becomes, whom of them will really commit to stand by Israel, especially when it becomes a political fight that splits military and legislative branch sensibilities. And going to the mat for Israel could cost a legislators re-election if the international and then the domestic press turns anti-Israeli.

Just another time will tell question with the sitting POTUS of the USA always having most of the aces.

And while the world is somewhat waiting for Obama to respond to Israel's refusal to stop East Jerusalem settlements, there is that waiting period. To some extent, it may be in the best interests of the Arabs and Palestinians not to allow any incidents that will generate anti-Israeli sympathy, and Israel may be wise to do the same as US and international pressure builds to halt all settlement.

My prediction is no prediction, too many unknowns.

 

[heyheybooboo]

your post rebuffs my statements completely, with full details proving me otherwise.

I have sex with Angelina Jolie every night.

Rebuff my statement with full details proving me otherwise.

Get the picture, Ace?

Taken at face value your post is laughable at best and General Internet Bullshit to its core.

....

It is a lot easier for Iran to make a suitcase nuke and give it to terrorists in lebanon. also, it would be very hard to prove it came from them

a suitcase nuke bomb is small enough to fit in a football sized locker.

if detonated in a major city such as tel aviv. hundreds of thousands would die.

they are rumored to be between equal to 10 tons to 1kt of tnt.

little boy was 15kt.

I'll give you a hint.

Iran has produced about 1,750 kilograms of low-enriched uranium (LEU) at an average enrichment level of four percent.

In a best case scenario for Iran, 700-800 kilograms of 4% LEU would give Iran the capability to produce enough weapon-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon. This is called "Break-Out Capability" and with respect to Iran this ability is in great dispute.

Because of expected large losses Iran will most likely encounter in further processing, some experts think Iran may well need 900-1000+ kilograms of 4% LEU, if not more, to produce weapons-grade uranium.

Have you got the picture, yet, Ace?

750 kilograms of 4% LEU assumes an efficient, reliable centrifuge capability able to further enrich the LEU into weapon-grade uranium. Iran has 'mastered' what are called P1 (or IR1) cascades but there are serious questions as to their ability to maintain their series of P1 centrifuges. They are old and break down, and of course, it is very difficult for Iran to maintain them.

Has the light bulb come on yet, Ace?

That brings us to P2 (or IR2) cascades. These are 4 to 5 times more efficient than P1 centrifuges. Iran has not yet mastered them. They say they are 'close'. These are the centrifuges at the new enrichment site in Natanz where Iran is pursuing the 20% uranium enrichment process (and where Iran agreed today to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to conduct inspections).

Are yah still with me, Ace? (because here is where I'm going to flog your stupid bull-shitting ass)

In order to build a nuclear bomb with 20-25 kilograms of uranium you need 90% highly-enriched product.

A nuclear bomb made of 20% enriched uranium would be roughly the size of a tractor trailer. Kinda hard to put that on top of a missile, huh? Much less placing that tractor trailer inside a football, eh? I don't think Allah himself (or Yaweh, Jesus or Shiva) could accomplish that.

'Suitcase' nukes are (or were) made from plutonium, DouchBag, best-case weighted 50+ pounds (with around 20 pounds of plutonium) and were roughly the size of a footlocker.

You would need 6-7 times (or 130-140 pounds) of uranium to build a similar bomb. It would take one big-ass Mooslim to haul around a 170 pound bomb in his 'football-sized suitcase (sic)' which is pretty much Hollywood fiction.


Stop watching Jack Bauer, Ace.


PS (for one more kick in your bull-shitting ass) - The isotopes in Iranian nuclear material would be readily identifiable.






--

 

[Noobtastic]

gee, i wonder how many of them are on the aipac payroll

LOL!?

paranoid much?

nothing sinister about AIPAC or pro-israel movememts.

i guess progressive military statemens are incapable of independent thought?

unlike those peace-loving lefties bought and paid for by Saudi Arabia.

 

[Rainsford]

There are 4,000+ retired general officers, and about ~450 active at any given point.

So I agree, 50 isn't a lot.

But can you find 50 who disagree?

Support for Israel is pretty standard in military industry as the relationship is far more cooperative than other allies.

good luck finding 5 generals who are half as passionate as john foss who don't support israel.

I doubt I can find 50, but not because they aren't out there, but because I would have no idea how to conduct that kind of search. But to be fair, you didn't "find" 50 either...they got together and made it incredibly obvious what their position is, in a public way. Could you find 50 MORE that support this viewpoint?

And that's very much the point I'm trying to make. It's hard to conclude anything about this except that these 50 guys definitely think we should support Israel. The fact that they think this shouldn't matter too much, what seems more interesting is WHY they think this...and that is much less clear to me.

 

[Lemon law]

The IHV delusion may be in, "nothing sinister about AIPAC or pro-israel movememts."

I suppose IHV can take that position if he believes that Israeli land theft, Israeli violations of human rights, and a Israeli refusal to make a just peace is not sininster and corrosive to world peace and human rights.

Sadly for you position, the bulk or the world does not subscribe to your position, and Israeli support worldwide is dropping everyday because Israel IS NOW STILL ACTING IN A SINISTER MANNER.

Which is not to say that all sides have in past have not acted in a sinister manner, but now the world is saying a just mid-east peace is needed to correct past mid-east injustices.

And the current criteria for a just Mid-east peace starts with a total halt of further Israeli settlement on disputed land. And thus, in saying nyet by Netanyuhu, makes Israeli now Sinister villain #1 in the mid-east by world wide consensus.

But the increasingly minority position of total pro Israeli fan clubbers is duly noted, just do not claim to speak for the larger world majority as Netanyuhu has really cast the the Israeli position to stand four square against a just peace mid-east peace solution.

 

[Noobtastic]

I doubt I can find 50, but not because they aren't out there, but because I would have no idea how to conduct that kind of search. But to be fair, you didn't "find" 50 either...they got together and made it incredibly obvious what their position is, in a public way. Could you find 50 MORE that support this viewpoint?

And that's very much the point I'm trying to make. It's hard to conclude anything about this except that these 50 guys definitely think we should support Israel. The fact that they think this shouldn't matter too much, what seems more interesting is WHY they think this...and that is much less clear to me.

again, you ignore the strong us-israel military relationship.

Western military leaders all over the world are almost universally partial to israel.

the generals mentioned in the petition are cold war/vietnam/gulf war era leaders.

Australian General Jim Molan is the premier defense commander in the country - leading the major schools and chief of operations in Iraq - was highly critical of the UN's performance in gaza.

also supporters include British officer Richard Kemp who was the commander of british forces in Iraq, and Canada's chief of defense Walter Natynczk who has trained with Israelis.

Natynczk is technically "2nd in command", but Queen Elizabeth obviously has no role in what the military does.

So again, if you can find me 5 active generals with similar stats as the ones mentioned above who tow a different line, feel free to.

this isn't unique to those countries. NATO, Italy, France, Germany, etc...all are the same.

Norway wants to train with Israel's air force.

i dont think you'll find a lot of military generals who object to the IDF on moral grounds...

I suppose IHV can take that position if he believes that Israeli land theft, Israeli violations of human rights, and a Israeli refusal to make a just peace is not sininster and corrosive to world peace and human rights.

What does this have to do with AIPAC?

I'm really sick of your fuckin strawmans. We've had this conversation dozens of times and you just storm off like a little bitch and then repeat the same buzzwords in the next thread.

 

[Lemon law]

IHV, go ahead talk tough, but I am content to let time tell. If nothing else, you underestimate the Netanyuhu stupidity of totally allowing Israel to be painted into a corner by Netanyuhu.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Like I posted earlier, it costs 50 retired generals nothing to sign a glowing aipac form letter, and much the same can be said for various Senate or House resolutions.

.

ok I agree with the generals, but 75% of senate and 75% of house? thats not so easy to come by.

 

[Freshgeardude]

The IHV delusion may be in, "nothing sinister about AIPAC or pro-israel movememts."

I suppose IHV can take that position if he believes that Israeli land theft, Israeli violations of human rights, and a Israeli refusal to make a just peace is not sininster and corrosive to world peace and human rights.

wasnt it israel who offered 91% of land back, 9% in negev to make up that land to arafat and he walked away?

ya, i think I'm right

 

[Lemon law]

wasnt it israel who offered 91% of land back, 9% in negev to make up that land to arafat and he walked away?

ya, i think I'm right

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arafat rejected the Israeli deal because it was not fair and did not address the right to return.

But gotta love that FreshGearDude proposal that an acre of the Negev desert is worth an acre of the the much better land stolen from Palestinians.

Not even bat shit crazy Israeli settler parties will settle in the Negev can't grow a weed desert
that is totally unable to support human habitation.

http://macrocenter.rwu.edu/2004/briefingpapers/paper2.htm

 

[Noobtastic]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arafat rejected the Israeli deal because it was not fair and did not address the right to return.

But gotta love that FreshGearDude proposal that an acre of the Negev desert is worth an acre of the the much better land stolen from Palestinians.

Not even bat shit crazy Israeli settler parties will settle in the Negev can't grow a weed desert
that is totally unable to support human habitation.

http://macrocenter.rwu.edu/2004/briefingpapers/paper2.htm

WRONG AGAIN DUMBASS!!

The "right of return" was never a condition as part of the peace deal. Israel offered to reparate 100,000 Palestinians who were either displaced or split up during 1948 war.

arafat rejected the deal *without providing a counter-offer* not because it wasn't sweet enough, but because he didn't want peace.

this was confirmed by the arab states, by clinton's team, by israeli's, and some even within arafat's own circle - many of whom branched off into hamas or splinter hawks realizing the "moderate" palestinians could never fulfill statehood.

as far as habitation goes, it's all one big desert. the west bank as just as dry and arid as the negav 60 years ago.

it was israel that eliminated malaria and brought the arabs out of poverty.

 

[EagleKeeper]

This issue of "Right of Return" reminds me of the unions that are willing to call a strike rather than admit that a member did wrong.

cut the income of the members; close the factory rather than think of the overall welfare of the membership.

If you want a right of return; only left those that actually left - not those that were born out of the territory.

And possibly also compensated Israel for the attacks by the Arab states..

Everyone wants to go back to the problems/position of '48 - then let all accept responsibility and provide proper compensation.

 

[Viditor]

The "right of return" was never a condition as part of the peace deal. Israel offered to reparate 100,000 Palestinians who were either displaced or split up during 1948 war.

Ummm...that's exactly what he said. The right of return was not allowed to be part of the negotiations, and Arafat (stupidly I thought) refused to continue negotiations unless it was put on the table.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Ummm...that's exactly what he said. The right of return was not allowed to be part of the negotiations, and Arafat (stupidly I thought) refused to continue negotiations unless it was put on the table.

no. it was understood it was not on the table. arafat came to the agreements knowing it was not on the table.

 

[Freshgeardude]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arafat rejected the Israeli deal because it was not fair and did not address the right to return.

But gotta love that FreshGearDude proposal that an acre of the Negev desert is worth an acre of the the much better land stolen from Palestinians.

Not even bat shit crazy Israeli settler parties will settle in the Negev can't grow a weed desert
that is totally unable to support human habitation.

http://macrocenter.rwu.edu/2004/briefingpapers/paper2.htm

hey man, if Israel puts up a border to protect itself, there are mine fields on the map, and military installments on places of the west bank, I think the palestians would want land in the negev instead.

Instead, they were selfish. they have not had any progress in 50 years from the talks and they wanted to argue over such a small piece of land, which they would have gotten negev land, probably in gaza, so that shithole wouldnt be as overcrouded as it is today.

 

[Noobtastic]

Ummm...that's exactly what he said. The right of return was not allowed to be part of the negotiations, and Arafat (stupidly I thought) refused to continue negotiations unless it was put on the table.

it was never put on the table to begin with.

"right of return" is not in any way, shape, or form mandated by international law or any peace deal agreed to by israel.

it is simply a ploy used to brainwash the gen. palestinian pop to keep them in a constant state of dispossion.

go to the refugee camps in lebanon, and the UN-bankrolled teachers tell young pallies that one day they will return to israel.

instead of, you know - becoming citizens of lebanon, they are forced to live in this pathetic endless identity of stateleness.

and why?

for 2 billion in aid money?

so the arab states have a scapegoat?

so europe can sell newspapers?

so the UN has something to do?

the palestinians are tools. some realize this, and emigrate to chicago, europe, or become citizens of israel.

others are too dumb to realize their status as a pawn.

nobody wants a palestinian state, especially the palestinians.

 

[Viditor]

it was never put on the table to begin with.

"right of return" is not in any way, shape, or form mandated by international law or any peace deal agreed to by israel.

it is simply a ploy used to brainwash the gen. palestinian pop to keep them in a constant state of dispossion.

go to the refugee camps in lebanon, and the UN-bankrolled teachers tell young pallies that one day they will return to israel.

Ummm...no. 100s of thousands of Palestinians stiill remember living in their homes and businesses in Jerusalem. Being forced to relocate because of an agreement they were not a part of was a very bitter pill for them to swallow. They lost their homes and ended up with nothing...
Many Palestinians just want to go home before they die.
I imagine that much of this will ease as that generation dies off (the kids don't know or care except that it would make their parents happy)

BTW, I don't know if it's important, but I am Jewish myself. There are many of us who want this to end now, and we are tired of the hate mongers...both Isreali and Arabic (and American).

 

[Viditor]

no. it was understood it was not on the table. arafat came to the agreements knowing it was not on the table.

Arafat was under the arrogant and mistaken impression that he could change that during the talks. When he found he couldn't, he left...