Printable View
I've never heard of an Admiral refusing orders from the Executive Branch.
Link: The Truth Seeker - Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater
Link: Think Progress » CentCom Commander Fallon: Attack On Iran ‘Will Not Happen On My Watch’
An equally strange report is that Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.
Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ***-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
Link: U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
Ok...if I read that correctly, the US was planning to attack Iran with nuclear weapons on September 6. Do you believe that article to be credible?
If true, the next presidential election can't come soon enough...
That is a completely ridiculous article. The allegations are far fetched, and lack coherence. For example, if Dick Cheney asked Israel to launch a strike against nuclear facilities in Iran, why on Earth would that:
A. justify a followup US attack
B. Need a followup attack?
That is a delusion, poorly fabricated piece of fiction. I could understand the US talking to Israel about the possibilities of an attack on Iranian facilities, if needed. That's about all that is believable.
The first two articles I linked are also next to impossible for me to fathom. I can't honestly believe that if the President ordered a country nuked that it wouldn't be carried out. Yes, there may be generals that would object but others would be found to take their place and the bombing would take place.
Furthermore Newsweek is reporting that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, appears to be winning the internal debate within the Bush Administration on how to handle the challenge presented by Iran. Hence, diplomacy is apparently the preferred U.S. approach at this time. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the events cited by my initial post in this thread have validity.
Newsweek reports:
On the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, Gates has been quietly counseling moderation, as well. Among other moves, Gates has carefully quashed moves by hard-liners to launch provocative operations inside Iran in response to Tehran’s meddling in Iraq. “I think that the general view is we can manage this problem through better operations inside Iraq and on the border with Iran, that we can take care of the Iranian threat or deal with the Iranian threat inside the borders of Iraq—don't need to go across the border into Iran,” he told "Fox News Sunday" on Sept. 16. According to sources in the defense-intelligence community who are familiar with the various contingency plans for attacking Iran, Gates has had an impact there, as well, killing the Air Force’s “thousand points of light” air campaign, which would have involved an extensive target list. “He was a central element in making sure that plan died,” said one of these sources. “What emerged in its place was a much more scaled-down contingency plan.” But Gates has also taken the lead in stressing that the administration will continue to put diplomacy first.
I conclude that my initial online research was nothing more than total B.S.
You don't think Iran would strike back at Israel for that? They'd do something for sure. If they used nukes in retaliation, you can bet your patootie we'd use nukes to take out their nuke site. We'd have justification. Heck, if they just struck back conventionally, we'd probably have justification to use tactical nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonepride
I don't believe the article, but I don't think its as far fetched as you make it out to be. I'm curious if you just missed the part about the Iranian retailitory strike or just chose to ignore it to make the claim seem extremely rediculous.
The IAEA part was kind of interesting. Putting Israel's nuke program under the type of control we want NK, Iran to be under. I wonder what the results of those really were and if the reporting of the vote is normal behavior. Are we under IAEA controls? Probably not and probably for good reason.
I did locate a large number of articles that appear to collaborate the rift between Petraeus and Fallon.
I would expect that Fallon would be fired if he is that critical of the current Iraqi strategy?
I don't believe those first 2 articles, but I don't think they are that far fetched. The Newsweek quotes certainly don't squash it. The first 2 articles basically said Gates opposes that move.Quote:
Originally Posted by alaskaguy
Here's my interpretation if the two articles are legitimate.
1. Cheney, Hadley and whomever else involved may have wanted those weapons over in the middle east. Some stuff I've read seems to indicate that nukes are moved all over the world very often. Maybe not these specific type of nukes, but it might not be out of the realm of possibility that this type of movement is fairly common, so some might not notice what specific type was being moved or know that that type never moves. Far fetched, but not unbelieveable.
2. Gates has basically taken a first strike, conventional or otherwise, off the table for now according to Newsweek. However, if Israel made the first move and Iran struck back at Isreal, conventional or otherwise, I think Gates and public opinions' tune would change. All of the sudded, everyone is in support of taking out Iran's nuke areas.
3. There are neocons who favor a first strike, conventional or otherwise. This is indisputable. The fact that Gates opposes it means that someone out there is arguing for the opposite position as gates.
4. Is it unreasonable to believe that someone in our goverment might try to work with someone in the Israeli government to bait Iran into some sort of retaliation, thereby allowing the US the in to go after Iran without having to do it pre-emptively?
I don't think its out of the realm of possibility. Another scary thing is our military leaking information in order to stop an order that was made. Not that the order was to attack, but that it was such a strange circumstance. I don't like that idea either to be honest.
I don't think Bush would work like this. I don't like him as president and never voted for him, but I think he is generally a good guy and does what he thinks is right. I respect him for that.
Cheney I don't trust. He's too secretive. If something like this would ever be possible, I'd see him in that role.
To be honest, I got to about the third paragraph, and quit reading, so I wasn't ignoring the content, I had just dismissed the validity of it based on the first portion alone. I really do not believe that Iran has nuclear capability at this point, and a conventional strike by Iranian missiles would be just as likely to land in Lebanon as Israel. A conventional strike by Iranian jets would result in a bunch of Iranian jets lying in little burning piles on the ground, with little or no Israeli casualties. I suppose I ought to read the rest of the article now so I can comment further.Quote:
Originally Posted by clone52
Ok.......I've read the first two. I really don't believe any of it. If there is any basis in truth, then I would suspect that a combined US/Israeli strike could be a contingency plan. And I am quite sure that the US has probably talked to Israel about the possibility of an Israeli strike if the need arose. However, I don't think the US would have to encourage such a strike. It's more likely, given Israel's history, that US would have to hold them back from such action, as they have a penchant for taking preventive action without a lot of warning, or international support for that matter. I think the Bent Spear incident is totally and completely unrelated.
You're probablby right about Iran's response. But I bet there are some in our government that would like nothing more than to get an Iranian response that would provoke us into being able to hit them hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonepride
Those sites are about as credible as the weekly world news!Quote:
Originally Posted by jbhtexas
The US is not going to pre-emptively strike a country with nuclear weapons. Anyone that thinks they are planning it needs to go back into mom's basement and get a new tinfoil hat.
Those stories don't imply the US would pre-emptively strike a country with nuclear weapons. Not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by brianhos
Ok.......I'm curious.........who's in the picture for your avatar?Quote:
Originally Posted by brianhos
In judging the credibility of the Truth Seeker article, it might be worth considering that the Truth Seeker site appears to be, among other things, anti-semetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonepride
Link: The Truth Seeker
Do Jews Control The World? is an interesting article. Also, go to the "Zionism, Anti-Semitism, Israel and Its US Lobby" link in the Archives category and feast your eyes.