and IMO? we don't need tactical nukes, just some serious disruption of the infrastructure...
that did work with Iraq, way back when,
the problem is this: Iran is a major oil-producer, and we'll see oil go astronomical$$ without Iraq oil flowing to replace the loss of Iranian oil on the world market...
starting to see the long-term "plan" yet? replace Irans oil with Iraqi, to keep the flow up.. Iran has been working against US in Iraq so we still need their oil...
when Bush started talking reduction of US consumption of mideast oil in his state of the union? he was saying something very important.... you think Greenspan talked in "code"? well, Bush admitted something pretty serious....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
We cannot ever rule out a takeover and a new Jihad...
The average "Joe" just does not understand how serious this situation is becoming..
Around here? everyone is working as hard as they can to stay up with escalating prices, and management teams out to terrify them into working overtime without pay.
I am one of those average "Joes" and I will tell ya right now I don't like the way things are shaping up here on the Mainland..
As a former W supporter, I see him in action now, and see a Deer in the headlights..Then I want to puke.
Am I alone ?? or are others honestly getting un-comfortable as well.
posted
the "mistake" IMO was listeing to Chalabi and the rest of the Iraqi Nationlists in exile...
they lied big time... they are the ones that said we would be welcomed as liberators.. they also fed a lot of the bad intel into the system...
Chalabi has a very bad record.. Chalabi left Iraq with his family in 1956 and spent most of his life in the USA and the UK.
n 1977 he founded the Petra Bank in Jordan. After the bank's failure, Chalabi was convicted and sentenced in absentia for bank fraud by a Jordanian military tribunal. Chalabi returned under the Bush admin and was given a position on the Iraq interim governing council by the Coalition Provisional Authority. He served as president of the council in September 2003 He denounced a plan to let the UN choose an interim government for Iraq. "We are grateful to President Bush for liberating Iraq, but it is time for the Iraqi people to run their affairs," he was quoted as saying. In August 2003, the U.S. State Dept. conducted a poll among Iraqis and Chalabi was the only candidate whose unfavorable ratings exceeded his favorable ones.[5] In a survey of nearly 3000 Iraqis in February 2004 (by Oxford Research International, sponsored by the BBC in the United Kingdom, ABC in the U.S., ARD of Germany, and the NHK in Japan), only 0.2% of respondents said he was the most trustworthy leader in Iraq (see survey link below, question #13). A secret document written in 2002 by the British Overseas and Defence Secretariat reportedly described Chalabi as "a convicted fraudster popular on Capitol Hill".
so? did Bush have bad advice? he77 yes.... is that an excuse? he77 NO...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
"they lied big time... they are the ones that said we would be welcomed as liberators.."
Yes, they said, "Of course", and nodded their heads when Cheney suggested, "You will agree that they will welcome us a liberator, won't you?".
IP: Logged |
The INC often worked with the media, most notably with Judith Miller, concerning her sensational WMD stories for the New York Times. After the war, given the lack of discovery of WMDs, most of the WMD claims of the INC were shown to have been either misleading, exaggerated, or completely made up while INC information about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein's loyalists and Chalabi's personal enemies were accurate.
In response to the controversy, Chalabi told London's Daily Telegraph in February 2004, "We are heroes in error. As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat."
Throughout the period, Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress was paid $335,000 per month by the Pentagon for the intelligence provided. In addition, the U.S. State Department paid over $33 million, according to a U.S. General Accounting office report in 2004.
As Chalabi's position of trust with the Pentagon crumbled, he found a new political position as a champion of Iraq's Shi'ites (Chalabi himself is a Shi'ite). Beginning January 25, 2004. In June 2004, it was reported that Chalabi gave U.S. state secrets to Iran in April, including the fact that one of the United States' most valuable sources of Iranian intelligence was a broken Iranian code used by their spy services.
Chalabi has been to Iran several times since sadam was captured, while chalabi was "in office"
Even before the U.S.-led war, Chalabi was no stranger to Iran. Alireza Nourizadeh is a journalist based in London and the director of the Center for Arab-Iranian Studies.
"His brother is a very well-known businessman in Iran; they have a lot of interests, part of his family is living in Iran. During the 20 years prior to Saddam's fall they were living in Iran,
...Nourizadeh adds that following the fall of Hussein's regime, Chalabi intensified his contacts with the Iranians in order to gain their support and solidify his own position in Baghdad.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Getting sucked into Iran with the size military we have now is not smart Unless you are thinking of a WWII type of fighting if you are thinking of a love tap and protect oil assets and try to change there way of life to love Americans. You will need the 300,000 troops that the generals want and thats to much for our country to eat a one setting at this point. IMHO
IP: Logged |
posted
Surgical strikes ,if you use them you better make sure you get everything and leave nothing that can operate Again I restate this can be handled with out invasion. And again I say Iran is not Iraq. Can we win yes no doubt but it won't be on the cheap like Iraq.
IP: Logged |
posted
One of the reasons that we did not use Nukes in Viet Nam was the fact that we had a very much intact Soviet Union with all the nuke power that we had. WWIII was a good possibility then. Simply because there were enough nuts on both sides that thought there side could win.
IP: Logged |
posted
Some people need to learn that "winning a war" is restricted to many and varied definitions.
Although, in a world absent nuclear weapons, one might point to suviving or destroying the enemy as "winning". That is much like describing a man made a quadraplegic in a car accident as a winner because he learned to type on a computer keyboard by hitting the keys with a pencil held between his teeth.
No side or faction "wins" a modern war. Even looking to the past, I sometimes wonder if even Alexander really won anything.
In almost every case, when you hear some one saying "We could have won if.........", it is not winning he speaks of, but fattening his ego. What is sad and sick is, he just doesn't know it.
IP: Logged |
posted
I can see where winning the war had to do with spreading democracy and prevent the spread of communism, I think that was the reason at the time. But the problem is who do you nuke. I guess you could have nuked North Vietnam and the northern part of South Vietnam up by the DMZ, but you still had so many enemy troops in South Vietnam. If you nuked South Vietnam you really defeat the reason we were there in the first place. If you had taken out North Vietnam you would also had to take out Laos, Cambodia and China to cut off troop movement and supplies. I am sure this was a thought at one time. The big question is why we have not had normal relations with Vietnam by now? I think the answer is that we are going to end up paying them billions in aide for all that Agent Orange we droped and caused all the illnesses that are related. I doubt if we will do this until a lot more Vietnam Vets are gone. Then you will see that they will link so many diseases to this chemical, unlike what the Vets are allowed to claim these days.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
