1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

US Generals to Resign if Bush Orders Iran Attack

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Deeper_Background, Feb 25, 2007.

  1. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    What Yawn mentions should be chilling.

    It's the fact that Dim Son can simply find the generals who are willing to do his bidding, put them in place, and ease the dissidents out. Like Nixon checking off to Robert Bork in the Saturday Night Massacre.
  2. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    I understand what you're saying...but there are few people left within the higher echelons of the military who realize we'd have any chance in hell if we opened up yet another front, especially with our OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO so incredibly fragile right now.
  3. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    If the American President is so bad, why did you like him so much in the '90s?
  4. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Not trying to defend him, but what seemed like a good idea in the 80s and 90s now doesn't seem like such a good idea after all.

    If nothing else, history has shown that our perception changes over time.
  5. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Iran was a peaceful, democratically elected government until we fucked with it in the 1950s by installing the Shah.

    The Shah was an ally of the U.S. His people, however, hated him and hated the country (the USA) that put him in power . . . which is 100 percent understandable.

    But even after all that, Iran was reforming at the turn of the century, and 9/11 gave us the chance to come together for a common cause --- getting rid of the Taliban, which had become a serious thorn in Iran's side.

    Then Bush had to go put Iran on his "axis of evil" . . . which made Iran feel threatened . . . which helped begat the election of the current president (who, thankfully, is beginning to fall out of favor).

    America has no one to blame but America for our sour relations with Iran.

    That nation could have been a much better ally than our dance with the Saudi Arabian devil.

    Will this nation ever fucking learn?
  6. I'm not sure what Guy means, but Iran-Contra was a terrible idea, anti-democratic at its core and toweringly stupid in its execution, and it has led directly, through some of the same people, to the OVP apparently running its own unaccountable foreign-policy apparatus for the last seven years.
  7. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    That isn't entirely fair to Bork. Bork told Richardson and Rickelhaus that eventually someone would have to fire Cox -- Nixon was just going to keep going down the list until someone did -- so he might as well end the bloodshed by firing Cox and then resigning himself. Richardson told him that if he was going to do that, he shouldn't resign and should stay on so that someone would be left to run the DoJ in the interim.
  8. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    Tit for tat, Fenian. When you know the bastard enemies are on both sides, you keep them both enough of a threat to each other to stay out of your hair. Unfortunately, and with the Russians' help, those Christmas presents accumulate and one of the kiddies decides it's time to take on Santa Claus.
  9. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    I don't know when the U.S., longtime nuke aggressor, decided it had the right to determine who can and who can't develop nuclear power.

    Iran has more than 50 divisions ready to roll.
  10. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Not saying it wouldn't be the right thing to do, but how come a general can resign if he doesn't like what's going on?

    Try that if you are a private or a lieutenant and see how that plays.
  11. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    They can retire.....
  12. Here's Sy Hersh on the latest brainstorm from the OVP's Bureau Of Chickenhawkery:
    "New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the “single most explosive” element of his latest article involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.
    Hersh says the U.S. has been “pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight” for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to “stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.” Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of “three Sunni jihadist groups” who are “connected to al Qaeda” but “want to take on Hezbollah.”
    Hersh summed up his scoop in stark terms: “We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11.”

    This is also why Iran-Contra was a terrible idea.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page