|
|
Post by tits on Aug 24, 2005 18:45:30 GMT -8
While at the surgeon's office on Aug 22, I struck up a conversation with a distinguished looking young man(mid thirties). We began discussing the war when he volunteered that his father is a retired LtG and his brother is a LtC. This gentleman stated that his brother was stationed at the Pentagon in 1998-2001, Strategic Planning Office.
He volunteered that his brother had said that as early as 1999 there were DefDept plans to invade Iraq for one major purpose. It would put pressure on the radical Islamic states of Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and Egypt and force them to clean up their radical elements. That the projections in 1999 were for a 40 year involvement because the radical fundamentalist would flock to Iraq/Afghanistan to fight the West. Roughly that it would take 40-50 years to pacify the region.
That was the first that I had heard of such a plan but it makes sense.
What do you think? Was he shooting BS?
|
|
|
|
Post by toejam on Aug 25, 2005 1:34:57 GMT -8
While at the surgeon's office on Aug 22, I struck up a conversation with a distinguished looking young man(mid thirties). We began discussing the war when he volunteered that his father is a retired LtG and his brother is a LtC. This gentleman stated that his brother was stationed at the Pentagon in 1998-2001, Strategic Planning Office. He volunteered that his brother had said that as early as 1999 there were DefDept plans to invade Iraq for one major purpose. It would put pressure on the radical Islamic states of Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and Egypt and force them to clean up their radical elements. That the projections in 1999 were for a 40 year involvement because the radical fundamentalist would flock to Iraq/Afghanistan to fight the West. Roughly that it would take 40-50 years to pacify the region. That was the first that I had heard of such a plan but it makes sense. What do you think? Was he shooting BS? If you take a look at where Iraq is, and now that we have a presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan, you will notice that Iran, one of the major terrorist states in the ME, is right between them. This is why they are going ahead with their nuclear weapons plans, and the toothless UN can do nothing about it. I laugh my ass off at some of the things the loony left says, like the USA "destabilized the region" over there. I am past 50 years old and the region has never been stable that I know about! I was never more embarassed to be an American than I was when that stumblebum, Jimmy Carter, was president, with gas being even higher (proportionately) than it is now and that fool couldn't even rescue the hostages from those slimebags in Iran. It's about time we took Israel off their leash and let them deal with Iran and the nuke situation. And high time we stopped pussyfooting around. |
|
|
|
Post by jaber on Aug 25, 2005 2:38:11 GMT -8
TJ: You are 100% correct - from your mountain eyrie.
So are the like-minded right-wingers on the other side who want to take out you and yours - equally from THEIR mountain eyrie.
I would suggest shipping all existing munitions from around the globe [except nukes], together with all those who want to use them, to the South Pole and let them kill themselves off.
With all the freed-up "defence" expenditure the rest of us would build clean power plants [nuclear, wind, sun, whatever] to provide power to all hamlets, villages, towns and cities; build desalination plants and iceberg docking stations to bring water to locations that suffer continuous drought, and whatever else is needed to restore humanity to the human race.
All nukes will be destroyed as will all warships and aircraft designed for war. Helicopters and AC30s will become a means of short-range transport for holiday makers.
Any uppity SFB who starts touting conflict will be parachuted into Antarctica.
What a wonderful world that would be - don't ya think?.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaber on Aug 25, 2005 2:47:50 GMT -8
TITTUS: You had heard about those plans before but you did not have the details.
Rumsfeld and his minions have said many times that the Pentagon and other agencies make many plans for as many eventualities as thay can think of.
If you haven't been there, take a look around globalsecurity.org.
This page [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan.htm] shows a thimblefull that have been brough to light.
|
|
|
|
Post by Husky23 on Aug 25, 2005 4:39:09 GMT -8
Not far fetched at all - me thinks, Tittus. But jeese, 40-50 years?! I'm not digging the notion. And, I'm getting pretty damn tired of spilling US blood to try and keep this world from ripping itself apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by toejam on Aug 25, 2005 6:30:20 GMT -8
TJ: You are 100% correct - from your mountain eyrie. So are the like-minded right-wingers on the other side who want to take out you and yours - equally from THEIR mountain eyrie. I would suggest shipping all existing munitions from around the globe [except nukes], together with all those who want to use them, to the South Pole and let them kill themselves off. With all the freed-up "defence" expenditure the rest of us would build clean power plants [nuclear, wind, sun, whatever] to provide power to all hamlets, villages, towns and cities; build desalination plants and iceberg docking stations to bring water to locations that suffer continuous drought, and whatever else is needed to restore humanity to the human race. All nukes will be destroyed as will all warships and aircraft designed for war. Helicopters and AC30s will become a means of short-range transport for holiday makers. Any uppity SFB who starts touting conflict will be parachuted into Antarctica. What a wonderful world that would be - don't ya think?. Does your baloon ever land? Yes, by all means, let's kiss the asses of the terrorist states and maybe they'll leave us alone. It worked for the Israelis, didn't it? And we're not "both right". One of us is right and one of us is wrong. Moral equivalence doesn't fly here. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Aug 25, 2005 7:37:02 GMT -8
"So are the like-minded right-wingers on the other side who want to take out you and yours - equally from THEIR mountain eyrie."
Our mountain eyrie is better armed than theirs. If they threaten us, smash them like bugs. Eco-nazis would not permit use of the pristine Antarctic for your purposes.
With all the freed-up "defence" expenditure the rest of us would build clean power plants [nuclear, wind, sun, whatever] to provide power to all hamlets, villages, towns and cities; build desalination plants and iceberg docking stations to bring water to locations that suffer continuous drought, and whatever else is needed to restore humanity to the human race.
Kind of like what western Europe has done under the Pax Americana? I'd suggest the US just remove it's miltary from European bases and let them defend themselves from Soviet aggression...Oh wait, the Soviet Union is gone.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will till for those who keep their swords.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaber on Aug 25, 2005 7:58:55 GMT -8
TJ: My balloon, as you call it, is usually filled with as many legal stimulants as possible - short of alcohol. Generally, nicotine, caffeine and cocoa with the occasional shot of sugar works fine for me. When I shuffle this mortal coil one of these nights, I intend to go happy ;-)
"let's kiss the asses of the terrorist states"
I said nothing about kissing anyone's arse. Quite the contrary, I recognise that both sides in any conflict are arseholes and my proposal is to rid the world of both of them as opposed to wasting time and money trying to ream a new one in either side.
"And we're not "both right"."
You ARE both right - and in both senses of that word!
"Moral equivalence doesn't fly here."
That's a serious problem you guys seem to have. "I can have the Bomb, but you can't"; "I can have the delivery systems, but you can't", "It's my football and you aren't going to play because I say so".
Why do you suppose the other children pool their pocket-money and buy their own ball?
If you guys actually practiced a little more genuine morality - instead of trying to stuff your particular brand of it down everyone else's throats - you may have a few more friends in this world - maybe even everyone else in the world.
CAMERON: Don't butt in with your 'relativistic' crap. ;-0
|
|
|
|
Post by jaber on Aug 25, 2005 8:55:38 GMT -8
101:
"Our mountain eyrie is better armed than theirs. If they threaten us, smash them like bugs. Eco-nazis would not permit use of the pristine Antarctic for your purposes."
There you go man, mine's bigger than yours - penile envy gets them every time, doesn't it?
I'll meet you in the mountains of Iran and we'll have a chat over some DU cocoa ;-) Make sure you have your shots.
I see no Eco-nazis in the Gibson Desert of Australia so maybe we can book that field instead?
No worries, I'll ask some of my mates to fix it.
"Kind of like what western Europe has done under the Pax Americana? I'd suggest the US just remove it's military from European bases and let them defend themselves from Soviet aggression...Oh wait, the Soviet Union is gone."
First: Mimicry is the highest form of flattery - well done on the double-take style ;-)
To the subject: Point taken, but the 20th Century PA is not the same as that proposed by PNAC et al for the 21st.
In the latter part of last century there was an atavistic need to balance global power post WWII and the demise of the British Empire. The time before that was during the ascendant Spanish and French Empires when the Brits under Elizabeth I were just starting out.
I believe PNAC adherents are intent - ultimately - on precipitating conflict with China [going for the brass ring, the whole enchilada, or whatever euphemism you care to use for total global domination] while keeping India and Pakistan too engrossed in their oneupmanship game to care about where the U.S. sticks its jackboots into the continent while positioning itself in its opening gambit to locations within sight of China's west flank.
You can't take China relying solely on a Pacific pipeline - even using Japan, Korea and Taiwan as staging points [you would likely lose them PDQ anyway], so you have to come across the continent as well in order to force them into a fight on two fronts.
With China done, the Paks and Indians will pose little problem so that leaves the 'old country' club.
After Iraq, as an 'old country' club member Russia, despite its post-glasnost weakness, is not playing your game any more and neither will other club members - Blair [thankfully] will eventually disappear into the obscurity he deserves, and I doubt that you will get much friendship out of right-wing German and French governments when they come along.
The old country club members may be individually weak but they are too savvy from centuries of conniving and double-dealing to not see where your ambitions lie, and collectively they can send you home with a bloody nose if you start to mess in their back yard.
I hope that the Uzbek example is the start of a trend and makes your war mongers realise that they are already a continent too far.
I hope you do pull out of your own accord but something tells me that you will need some 'incentive'.
|
|
|
|
Post by toejam on Aug 25, 2005 9:42:24 GMT -8
How nice. I wonder how the world will get by without the money we shovel into some of these third world toilets. Worse, what are China and the OPEC countries going to do without one of their biggest customers? Oh sure, China will get the oil but they won't have anybody to sell their cheap shit to. Then China can buy up the oil fields and the liberal whiners in the EU will have somebody else to cry about. In the meantime, the rest of the world just rots into the same kind of decay the Soviet Union decayed into.
How nice. Maybe we should start right away: we can keep our foreign aid, bring the Israelis over here and tell them they have to arm wrestle the Hispanics for Arizona, or better still, California, start drilling in ANWR and the Gulf until we get our electric car technology (or hydrogen, or whatever) up and running. Stick your Kyoto accord in your ass.
The Arabs can keep the ME, and eat their sand and drink their oil. Like I said, China can peddle their junk elsewhere. We will close our borders and if needs be build a concrete wall around the place. And we'll STILL have the strongest military because we have the resources and technology to make it happen.
Sound like you're trying to shove your morality (or lack of it) down OUR throats.
That's what we hate the most about you arrogant Europeans. You think you're the only ones fit to talk about "morality" as if you know more than the other guy.
The southern USA has a saying, left over from the Civil War. It goes "We don't care how you did it up north".
Well, we don't care how you do it in Europe, and if those scumbags who bombed the WTC had kept to themselves they wouldn't have to deal with this shit now. As attractive as your first grade approach to this is, it's not very helpful. It would be nice if our President could put the gloves on with OBL to settle this - he's in pretty good shape for an old guy and would probably kick his ass. But it ain't gonna happen.
They say "our policies" caused them to blow up the WTC. Fine. Thier "policies" caused us to take over Iraq and Afghanistan.
You can't have it both ways. We ignored that shit for too long.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Aug 25, 2005 10:06:45 GMT -8
PNAC adherents notwithstanding, China's behavior may have more to do with precipitating a conflict than our own. One hopes they wouldn't want to lose their largest market by bothering with silly little Taiwan.
No illusion that a land war with China would be suicidal, although fully arming Japan and reunifying Korea under Seoul aren't bad thoughts as far as keeping the tiger in it's cage. I think India would probably be thrilled to have China neutralized as well.
"I doubt that you will get much friendship out of right-wing German and French governments when they come along. "
I doubt you will, either, if history is any indicator.
"I can have the Bomb, but you can't"; "I can have the delivery systems, but you can't", "It's my football and you aren't going to play because I say so".
No, you don't get a football because you are a rogue state (or NGO) led by despots and fanatics. If you buy a football of your own we'll do everything humanly possible to prevent you from deploying it. If you should ever manage to deploy one, you and all you love will glow in the dark for a century.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaber on Aug 25, 2005 11:02:18 GMT -8
Hey, hey, hey, Boo-Boo ... another pic-a-nic basket! - but this must be the penultimate tonight. I need my beauty sleep.
>>Quote:
>>...my proposal is to rid the world of both of them as opposed to wasting time and money trying to ream a new one in either side.
>How nice. I wonder how the world will get by without the money we shovel into some of these third world toilets. Worse, what are China and the OPEC countries going to do without one of their biggest customers? Oh sure, China will get the oil but they won't have anybody to sell their cheap shit to. Then China can buy up the oil fields and the liberal whiners in the EU will have somebody else to cry about. In the meantime, the rest of the world just rots into the same kind of decay the Soviet Union decayed into.
I get it, TJ ... you're one of the Intelligent Design mob who believes the planet only formed in 1776.
Newsflash: None of the civilisations that traded for millenia before Jamestown was even so much as a thought in anyone's mind had a DOW, never mind one over 10,000. If the war mongers of the world are ported off the rest of us could get down to the business of making the planet as good as it should be - maybe even close to what God originally intended.
>How nice. Maybe we should start right away: we can keep our foreign aid, bring the Israelis over here and tell them they have to arm wrestle the Hispanics for Arizona, or better still, California, start drilling in ANWR and the Gulf until we get our electric car technology (or hydrogen, or whatever) up and running. Stick your Kyoto accord in your ass.
Don't wait! PLEASE don't wait! Our hybrid, gas and electric cars are already on the road! Please go home and take out the trash with you - don't worry, we'll close the door on our eco-house on your way out.
>The Arabs can keep the ME, and eat their sand and drink their oil. Like I said, China can peddle their junk elsewhere. We will close our borders and if needs be build a concrete wall around the place. And we'll STILL have the strongest military because we have the resources and technology to make it happen.
Jeez ... did you read my self-same proposal many months ago on THC?
>>Quote:
>>If you guys actually practiced a little more genuine morality - instead of trying to stuff your particular brand of it down everyone else's throats - you may have a few more friends in this world - maybe even everyone else in the world.
>Sound like you're trying to shove your morality (or lack of it) down OUR throats.
Yeah ... kinda sucks, doesn't it? Don't forget to swallow.
>That's what we hate the most about you arrogant Europeans. You think you're the only ones fit to talk about "morality" as if you know more than the other guy.
Laddie, our "arrogance" is based on "Been there; done that; read the book; seen the movie; worn the T-shirt".
Yours, on the other hand, is much closer to a three- [no wait, you only have 200 years] two-year old's moue when it can't have its own way followed by it doing the exact same thing it got told "NO!" for to start with. If you've raised kids you'll know what I mean.
>The southern USA has a saying, left over from the Civil War. It goes "We don't care how you did it up north".
Good for them. I'd say exactly the same thing - and "with knobs on" to boot.
>Well, we don't care how you do it in Europe, and if those scumbags who bombed the WTC had kept to themselves they wouldn't have to deal with this shit now.
There you go again. I should not take advantage of the youth of my opponent - but I will.
Those scumbags came from YOUR OIL ALLY - Saudi Arabia - not from Iraq! Heard that before have you? Well, I am sure you will hear it again. You may be hard of hearing in your old age so I'll speak louder next time.
>As attractive as your first grade approach to this is, it's not very helpful. It would be nice if our President could put the gloves on with OBL to settle this - he's in pretty good shape for an old guy and would probably kick his ass. But it ain't gonna happen.
Absolutely - I agree - what is life worth without a dream?
You guys screwed up after the Gulf War by not finishing the job; you guys screwed up in Afghanistan by not finishing the job; and now you're screwing up by insisting on "finishing" a job that never needed doing in the first place! DOH!!!
Now, get off your backside, get out of Iraq, GO BACK TO AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN and FINISH the damned job you *should* have in the first place!
>They say "our policies" caused them to blow up the WTC. Fine. Thier "policies" caused us to take over Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hmmm ... they can raise the stakes as well, my friend, especially in a country with such poorly defended borders. And when the next 9/11-style commission find that they were from somewhere near the Caspian Sea [and I don't mean Iran] what will you do? Invade Russia, perhaps?
>You can't have it both ways. We ignored that shit for too long.
Hey ... my family motto is "Go For It!". The worst that can happen is you get handed your head [and that supposedly happened to one of my distant ancestors]. Enjoy it while you can.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaber on Aug 25, 2005 11:17:26 GMT -8
101: I accept your other ripostes, but not this one. [and this is my last for tonight. I'll pick up any others tomorrow]
"No, you don't get a football because you are a rogue state (or NGO) led by despots and fanatics. If you buy a football of your own we'll do everything humanly possible to prevent you from deploying it. If you should ever manage to deploy one, you and all you love will glow in the dark for a century."
Rogue state / NGO: by YOUR definition, but NOT by mine - especially if I am that despot! ;-)
Prevention: Yep - fully expected which is why we will dig deeper, camouflage better and detect your spies far more efficiently than you will ever detect ours. Ha, ha - we speak your language and understand your "culture" - can your heroes say the same?
Glow: 'Electric Blue' is my favourite colour - maybe someone on the recipe pages can help you with the colourant. Orange and green are so passe ;-)
Definitely time for a kip. Catch U L8R.
|
|
|
|
Post by toejam on Aug 25, 2005 12:12:47 GMT -8
Newsflash: None of the civilisations that traded for millenia before Jamestown was even so much as a thought in anyone's mind had a DOW, never mind one over 10,000. We have one NOW, and the last time I looked this was 2005, not 1211. As I recall, you schmucks were forever fighting over something back then, too. Don't wait! PLEASE don't wait! Our hybrid, gas and electric cars are already on the road! Please go home and take out the trash with you - don't worry, we'll close the door on our eco-house on your way out. Here's a newsflash for you: the PRODUCTION hybrids are being made in Japan. After you pawned the MG's and Triumphs off on us we are not interested in any more of your "cars". They make great conversation pieces but that's about all. And holy shit, those "eco-houses" have been around for 30 years that I know about. Where have you been? No. No, ours is closer to "we are going to do this our way" and we end up doing shit like sending men to the moon several times, a record that still stands. It ain't bragging if you can do it, and we can do it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, and if we'd have attacked Saudi Arabia you would have said "See? See? This war is all about oil!" Gimme a break! Well, the politics of this is something I might argue if I understood it myself. That 9/11 comission was a joke if you ask me, and not getting Saddam the first time mystified me, too. Unfortunately, arguing all this shit at this point in time just brings us right back to 2005 with the same problems. Personally, I like what England is doing: throwing some of these malcontents out and we need to go back to limiting immigration like it used to be. But there are a lot of steps between here and there. |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Aug 25, 2005 12:49:45 GMT -8
but this was intriguing because (if this is true) it was hatched under the Clinton administration. I wonder if we had gone in if the attack on the WTC had happen in 2000 or 1999. Clinton was practicing the "Pat Robertson" diplomacy with several of the world terrorist leaders. A review of the 2000 fy SECDEF report to congress listed 189 Americans killed in 1132 military operations in 117 countries. Kinds of make it appear that this is more than a political issue.
Jaber you are talking to a lifer. I know the military. I served as a marine, 16 y with USNR and 11 y as a GS with the USA in the medical agency.
It does seem foolish to spill American blood over attempting to quiet the region. I am reminded of the French in the early 1800s and the English in the early 1900s. If one were to search the Roman and Persian history it becomes obvious that these nomadic peoples don't want to be unified. It reminds me of the Hatfields and McCoys, a feud that still brews in the Appalachian hills. No amount of Federal, State, and Local law enforcement can change the 140 years of hate.
While working in Haifa in 1985 and then in Kuwait in 1988, I was amazed that my native colleagues could recognize a persons affiliation by appearance. We in American cannot understand the depth of that anger, distrust, and hate. We cannot understand why the Sunnies refused to participate in the constitution process or why the Shiites kill other Shiites for participating.
Jaber, the problem is beyond our myopic political blame gaming. In some ways, the politics of the Neo-Libs and Neo-Cons resembles the Trans Euphrates region. Middle ground is not desired.
|
|
