• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Trouble Brewing: CENTCOM Commander Resigns Over Differences With Bush Over Iran

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Cool. Iran has had it coming for a while. :thumbsup:
I guess you volunteer to lead the first attack wave then, right?
No chance that we will invade Iran, it's just not possible with current troop rotation. But if we somehow did, I'd volunteer.
Judging by what you said in the illegal immigrant thread, you'll have no problem with being captured and tortured because you'll be on their soil illegally.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Cool. Iran has had it coming for a while. :thumbsup:
I guess you volunteer to lead the first attack wave then, right?
No chance that we will invade Iran, it's just not possible with current troop rotation. But if we somehow did, I'd volunteer.
If only people who supported it would have to pay for it, too. Maybe you guys can all move to another country. It will be newly created out of some western states and named United States of F**k You and your entire national manifesto can be to declare war and antagonize until you eat yourselves from within like a magotted undead.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Cool. Iran has had it coming for a while. :thumbsup:
I guess you volunteer to lead the first attack wave then, right?
No chance that we will invade Iran, it's just not possible with current troop rotation. But if we somehow did, I'd volunteer.
Judging by what you said in the illegal immigrant thread, you'll have no problem with being captured and tortured because you'll be on their soil illegally.
What choice would he have? The chances of our soldiers and agents being tortured by our current enemies, or potential enemies, are nearly 100% -- and those enemies are likely to do so without a second thought.

IOW, for much of the world, torture is the rule, not the exception.

Not that it justifies our doing the same, on any occasion; but it certainly makes your statement pretty ridiculous...
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Imagine the number of enemies the US government would make in a day, should they decide to attack Iran.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Fallon isn't and never has been an obstacle to an attack on Iran. It's simply that he doesn't agree with Bush, and now that it's public, he had to be put down.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Originally posted by: JTsyo
Originally posted by: yllus
The U.S. is not going to war with Iran. It's a complete impossibility. The buildup needed would be obvious and well publicized, and between Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and other places, the troop levels for the campaign simply don't exist.

That said, Admiral Fallon probably did resign for exactly the reasons he stated: "This constant drumbeat of conflict . . . is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions." Contrary to popular opinion, the military does in fact get heavily engaged in diplomacy. He's probably sick and tired of trying to shore up relations in the CENTCOM AOR with the crap that the Bush administration constantly and very likely unilaterally spews. Hopefully this will send a message to the Pentagon and WH.
Which countries border Iran on the East and West?
Which countries are most of the US troops in?

If a war was to start with Iran, I think the US is currently well positioned. Though of course we don't have the troops to cover everything.
You're right, the troops in those countries bordering Iran are having such an easy time of it that it should be no big deal to take on a nation with a population the size of of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. :p

Air superiority = No problem
Ground campaign = Tougher, but still a cinch
The aftermath = A waking nightmare
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
The only reason we have not attacked Iran is Oil. Everything boils down to Oil and Money and the World Economy. How much more do you want to pay for gas at the Pump?

Iran will attack the USA one way or another and sooner or later. It is just a matter of time. They have a goal of Muslims taking over the world. That is why they dont like Isreal and support the Hezbolah Terrorists. It is very plain and simple. Look at Muslim Extremism and follow the money. Iran has been playing this game for a long time to destablilize other countries while they claim they have done nothing wrong. They are so full of baloney.

We can sit back and wait for Muslim Extremists to take over or we can do something. Take your pick. The world is in big trouble if we do nothing.
 

Kerouactivist

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2001
4,655
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Once again the thread title shows a total disregard for what is actually in the thread.

Thread sub-title: Barrier Preventing Iran War Removed

What is in the article quoted by the OP: When asked if today announcement might be interpreted as a move closer toward military action against Iran, Gates said, "that's ridiculous, just ridiculous ... the notion that this portends anything in change of Iran policy is to quote myself ridiculous."

Gates said Tuesday that Fallon had asked him for permission to retire and Gates agreed. Gates said it was "the right thing to do."

Gates said it was "ridiculous" that Fallon's departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. The Defense Secretary also said there was a "misperception" that Fallon disagrees with the administration's approach to Iran.
To kinda misquote from Matt Taibbi,


I wouldn't trust anyone in the Bush admin to even tell me what fucking time it is....
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
Originally posted by: piasabird
Iran will attack the USA one way or another and sooner or later.
False.

They have a goal of Muslims taking over the world.
False.

That is why they dont like Isreal and support the Hezbolah Terrorists.
No, this is why they don't like Israel. That, and the civilian body count Israel racks up.

Iran has been playing this game for a long time to destablilize other countries while they claim they have done nothing wrong.
In the last 50 years, if you want to compare who has done more to destabilize other countries, you would get one answer: USA...all the way.

We can sit back and wait for Muslim Extremists to take over or we can do something.
Take over? AFAIK, hiding in some mountains between Pakistan and India, or running around Iraq because we removed Saddam (who hated extremists within his borders), I don't see them 'taking over' anything.

Wrong on all accounts. Your conspiracy theories rank right up there with Saddam sending ninja assassins across the Atlantic while we sleep.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If only people who supported it would have to pay for it, too. Maybe you guys can all move to another country. It will be newly created out of some western states and named United States of F**k You and your entire national manifesto can be to declare war and antagonize until you eat yourselves from within like a magotted undead.
Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Judging by what you said in the illegal immigrant thread, you'll have no problem with being captured and tortured because you'll be on their soil illegally.

I never said that I supported an invasion of Iran. It's a terrible idea and logistically nearly impossible. But if somehow it did happen I'd take up arms and rejoin my brothers in the military. Something that neither of you would understand.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
For the nutty comment of the century, piasabird stands out with---Iran will attack the USA one way or another and sooner or later.

Get a damn life, Iran has not engaged in a war of aggression for something like 3000 years. Its the damn USA that is waging wars of aggression against Iran. Like it or not,
Iran will no longer dance to the US tune and will have its own foreign policy based on Iranian interests. GWB already blew it when Iran extended the olive branch in 2002 and smarter US leadership can create a US Iranian alliance. But strangely enough, a US foreign policy of poking Iran with sharp sticks has not produced friendship.

If piasabird wants to see a war monger, a quick look in any mirror is suggested.

Then we have the TallBill take on the matter with---I never said that I supported an invasion of Iran. It's a terrible idea and logistically nearly impossible. But if somehow it did happen I'd take up arms and rejoin my brothers in the military. Something that neither of you would understand.

Which is simply a rehash of my country right or wrong with TallBill being rational enough to say we would be wrong. Which cuts both ways because many would join the Iranian side with the same my country right or wrong mantra. Which always ends up being a fine way to get a lot of good people killed regardless of which group of idiots end up winning.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Originally posted by: Lemon law

Then we have the TallBill take on the matter with---I never said that I supported an invasion of Iran. It's a terrible idea and logistically nearly impossible. But if somehow it did happen I'd take up arms and rejoin my brothers in the military. Something that neither of you would understand.

Which is simply a rehash of my country right or wrong with TallBill being rational enough to say we would be wrong. Which cuts both ways because many would join the Iranian side with the same my country right or wrong mantra. Which always ends up being a fine way to get a lot of good people killed regardless of which group of idiots end up winning.
So every man that has ever fought in any war ever is an idiot? Wow, that's profound. My line of logic is that if men from our country have to fight and die in a war then I, as a fit and able bodied man, would be right there by their side. We killed a lot of good hearted German soldiers during WW2.

By the way Iran was engaged in a war with Iraq for about 8 years in the 80's.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: Lemon law

Then we have the TallBill take on the matter with---I never said that I supported an invasion of Iran. It's a terrible idea and logistically nearly impossible. But if somehow it did happen I'd take up arms and rejoin my brothers in the military. Something that neither of you would understand.

Which is simply a rehash of my country right or wrong with TallBill being rational enough to say we would be wrong. Which cuts both ways because many would join the Iranian side with the same my country right or wrong mantra. Which always ends up being a fine way to get a lot of good people killed regardless of which group of idiots end up winning.
So every man that has ever fought in any war ever is an idiot? Wow, that's profound. My line of logic is that if men from our country have to fight and die in a war then I, as a fit and able bodied man, would be right there by their side. We killed a lot of good hearted German soldiers during WW2.

By the way Iran was engaged in a war with Iraq for about 8 years in the 80's.
By the way, Saddam attacked Iran. Do we have to go over this again?

 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
I never said that I supported an invasion of Iran. It's a terrible idea and logistically nearly impossible. But if somehow it did happen I'd take up arms and rejoin my brothers in the military. Something that neither of you would understand.
I understand, Army brat here. And good for you for thinking that way (seriously).

I think the thing to remember here is that war (or low-intensity conflict, or whatever the term of the day is) is a nasty business, and that lots of good, innocent (in that they didn't start it) people die on both sides of a war.

IMO, if it is so important to this county that we go to war, you should think long and hard about whether it's necessary or not. And if you think that this country should go to war, you should be ready to go yourself, along with (depending on your ages of course) family and your kids. IF you aren't willing to send your kids to war, you shouldn't be supporting it.

That's what pathetic about the Iraq war now. I see many people that support it (and don't know anyone in the military), and when I say, good, I guess you will let your kids join the army to serve since it's important, I get a "ummm, I don't want them to go over there". Then I say that you really shouldn't be supporting it. (not saying everyone is like this, but it seems like a lot of people that I talk to are)
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
Originally posted by: TallBill
By the way Iran was engaged in a war with Iraq for about 8 years in the 80's.
Actually it was Iraq that started a war with Iran, funded with US money and weapons.

Remember?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
The bottom line fact is that GWB and Cheney could start a preemptive war with Iran at any time.
And then use that as an excuse to suspend elections is 2008.

Maybe I am being paranoid over this possibility, but sadly, I cannot dismiss that fear as baseless. I am saddened to see somewhat like Fallon being removed, because he was one key military figure that might have been able to throw a monkey wrench into that absolutely frightening possibility.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: TallBill
By the way Iran was engaged in a war with Iraq for about 8 years in the 80's.
Actually it was Iraq that started a war with Iran, funded with US money and weapons.

Remember?
I'm quite aware that Iraq started the war. But Iran certainly didn't end it once they had the upperhand for the last 6 years or so.

 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The bottom line fact is that GWB and Cheney could start a preemptive war with Iran at any time.
And then use that as an excuse to suspend elections is 2008.

Maybe I am being paranoid over this possibility, but sadly, I cannot dismiss that fear as baseless. I am saddened to see somewhat like Fallon being removed, because he was one key military figure that might have been able to throw a monkey wrench into that absolutely frightening possibility.
I think you can calm yourself about the possibility of US elections being suspended because of some preemptive attack on Iran. I am unaware of any basis in law available under that senario that would allow for the suspencion of an election.

Perhaps if we were majorly attacked at election time thus preventing people from voting. But that's the other way around.

As to Fallon preventing any such attack or war (2 different things. Israel bombed the Iraqi facility and we don't refer to that as a "war"), it's not his place. He can't do it. Long ago the Dems won the argument and such military decisions are in the hands of cilvilians now, where they belong IMO. Just because this particular senario fits your desires is a poor reason to advocate military authority trumping civilan, whether to start a war or prevent one, no matter.

That is Congresses call, I really can't envision a senario where GWB & Cheney calls for strikes on Iran without briefing at least some of Congress. If some know, they will all know. If that unbelievable senario were to transpire, you would quickly get the impeachment you want and mention so often.

Iran is a serious matter and it has been glossed over with so much Hillary vs Obama interest IMO. The next President may well go down in hisstory as presiding over the time when Iran went nuclear. Bonus points will not be awarded to that admin.

The Iran problem is complicated, and made hellishly more so by domestic politics and the upcoming election. One could see the Dems advantage in "allowing" GWB to strike preemptively; removes the threat from their admin and kills the Repubs in November. I don't think Repubs wanna do it for those very same reasons. GWB? I don't think he gives a sh!t about the politics of it (he'll never run for another office again), but I don't see him doing something so contrary to common political practice.

Fern
 

rasczak

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
10,453
20
81
wow, i did a password reset and account unlock on this guys account when i worked at a certain helpdesk. taht wasa pretty trippy experience. kinda off topic but hearing his name again just remided me of that moment. :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY