Gen. Petraeus named as next commander of Mideast command
By ANNE FLAHERTY – 2 hours ago
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hcWJu9bbzrJZ7uNHjvMn0BuTGqHQD907KV100
WASHINGTON (AP) — Gen. David Petraeus, the four-star general whose led troops in Iraq for the past year, has been tapped to become the next commander of U.S. Central Command, according to an official familiar with the decision.
If confirmed by the Senate, he would replace Navy Adm. William Fallon, who abruptly stepped down in March after a magazine reported that he was at odds with President Bush over Iran policy. Fallon said the report had become a distraction.
Taking Petraeus' position as the senior commander in Iraq would be Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, who had until recently been serving as Petraeus' deputy.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.
Petraeus, 55, is widely hailed by the Bush administration and members of Congress for developing and implementing a new strategy in Iraq, including the deployment of some 30,000 additional troops, that dramatically improved security.
Bush and Cheney forced Out Admiral Fallon as head of CENTCOM because he opposed nuking Iran. Now Bush and Cheney put their Yes Man, Petraeus, in as CENTCOM head so they can attack Iran and say that it was a decision by the head of CENTCOM. Quite a scam they got going there.
Wow, you cobble the strangest headlines from the news.
Anyone have a people sized plastic grocery bag handy there is a turd on the forum that needs disposed of.......
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Anyone have a people sized plastic grocery bag handy there is a turd on the forum that needs disposed of.......
War might seem like a TV program on CNN to you, but to me, I find it very deserving of scrutiny if the very POSSIBILITY exists.
It's not about me. Try adressing the real issue here.
Today's WSJ had a front page story on the Israeli's taking out that nuclear reactor in Syria in October. They had the evidence. Meanwhile, Bush plays it down to cozy up to the North Koreans?
The Israeli's need to watchover their own self defense. They do a much better job than the Busheviks.
we don't even get a link to the article this time, just wholesale cutting and pasting from the AP.
Seriously, without a wire service subscription posting whole articles even when a link is cited is over the line and really stealing of content. Wholesale taking the entire article and not providing additional substance nor even a link is even worse.
Is there some policy on whole sale theft of other people's articles?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The Israeli's need to watchover their own self defense. They do a much better job than the Busheviks.
I'm confused. Are you advocating attacking Iran or against it? We know Iran is in violation of UN agreements to cease the manufacture of nuclear materials, so we get to bomb them now?
I guess that's a problem with just cutting and pasting other people's articles, you never state your position on the issue.
- - -
YoungTulsans:
The possibility of war exists with almost every country. Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Pakistan and even a border war with Mexico (Northern Mexico is more controlled by criminals than government at this point). We have a possibility of war with many, many more countries...
Shall we bring up the possibility of war with each of them every time a commander is moved? This article had nothing to do with a potential war Iran. Petreous is needed for the floundering effort in Afghanistan.
I think the USA should not be marshal of the mid east. It's proven to be a fiasco for our country. Even Ronald Reagan recognized the fallacy.
We are in agreement on that.
I'd much rather favor involvement and coercion that direct action. Our best Mideastern successes are without direct action (Egypt & Jordan notably). But now that we are in this cluster, it's hard to just walk away without destroying our interests and hanging our allies out to dry.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The Israeli's need to watchover their own self defense. They do a much better job than the Busheviks.
CF:
Shall we bring up the possibility of war with each of them every time a commander is moved? This article had nothing to do with a potential war Iran. Petreous is needed for the floundering effort in Afghanistan.
I guess some of us are capable of reading between the propaganda lines. Why is Petraeus (you could show some respect and spell his name correctly except when doing a visual pun ie:Betrayus)the right man? He's been a failure on the other front and lied to congress about timetables and benchmarks. Why move him over to Afghanistan?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
We are in agreement on that.
I'd much rather favor involvement and coercion that direct action. Our best Mideastern successes are without direct action (Egypt & Jordan notably). But now that we are in this cluster, it's hard to just walk away without destroying our interests and hanging our allies out to dry.
Allies? HUH?
It will not be hard to run away from Iraq. We lost the oil to Iran. That's the fault of lousy leadership. Time to move on over to peaceful relationships. War did not work. Don't use excuses or ego to keep us entangled and headed to bankruptcy not to mention $150/barrel oil.
1. Allies: those who have fought with and died for our troops.
There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's who have allied themselves with US forces. I have no doubt most of those alliances are outside altruistic goals, but nonetheless they are alies. You deny this?
2. We lost what oil to Iran? Iran does not import any Iraqi oil, they are an oil exporter.
3. Iraq has no part in $150 oil. Iraq exports more oil now than when this cluster started.
4. War has not worked and the leadership was incompetent. No argument there.
5. Worrying about American self interests is not an excuse- in fact, it is really the only justifiable reason to fight a war. At this point, if we walk away most of our world interests will be damaged.
- Our allies in Iraq will suffer
- The entire region would be destabilized.
- Other commitments in the world and future commitments would be doubted (no, we really want your help. We'll watch out for you, don't worry)
- We get blamed for starting a mess and then walking away (damned if we stay, damned if we go)
- Oil prices will skyrocket as production in Iraq goes down and/or the entire region is destabilized
- Fear of a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia
- Kurdistan would almost certainly go to war with Turkey, a NATO member
One would think stopping those events would be worth something. Certainly it at leasts raises a areas for debate. Are those contingencies WORTH stay for? What alternatives do we have?
and again... this has little to do with Petraeus.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1. Allies: those who have fought with and died for our troops.
There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's who have allied themselves with US forces. I have no doubt most of those alliances are outside altruistic goals, but nonetheless they are alies. You deny this?
2. We lost what oil to Iran? Iran does not import any Iraqi oil, they are an oil exporter.
3. Iraq has no part in $150 oil. Iraq exports more oil now than when this cluster started.
4. War has not worked and the leadership was incompetent. No argument there.
5. Worrying about American self interests is not an excuse- in fact, it is really the only justifiable reason to fight a war. At this point, if we walk away most of our world interests will be damaged.
- Our allies in Iraq will suffer
- The entire region would be destabilized.
- Other commitments in the world and future commitments would be doubted (no, we really want your help. We'll watch out for you, don't worry)
- We get blamed for starting a mess and then walking away (damned if we stay, damned if we go)
- Oil prices will skyrocket as production in Iraq goes down and/or the entire region is destabilized
- Fear of a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia
- Kurdistan would almost certainly go to war with Turkey, a NATO member
One would think stopping those events would be worth something. Certainly it at leasts raises a areas for debate. Are those contingencies WORTH stay for? What alternatives do we have?
and again... this has little to do with Petraeus.
The emphasized point is all you need. That simple point alone should rule out trusting this regime. Why argue over little details? Don't forget the ramifications of such mistakes. Thousands have died, thousands more are mutiliated, and still thousands more are mentally ill as a result of getting into an unwinnable war. The bond of trust to this administration should be broken. We have every right to make sure they don't get away with any more of this corrupt BS.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
YoungTulsans:
The possibility of war exists with almost every country. Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Pakistan and even a border war with Mexico (Northern Mexico is more controlled by criminals than government at this point). We have a possibility of war with many, many more countries...
Shall we bring up the possibility of war with each of them every time a commander is moved? This article had nothing to do with a potential war Iran. Petreous is needed for the floundering effort in Afghanistan.
What? Last time I checked, Mexico and Zimbabwe weren't under plans for attack. Iran, however, is. Syria isn't a place I would take a vacation to any time soon either.
quote:
I find it very deserving of scrutiny if the very POSSIBILITY exists.
1) You didn't say "plan to attack," you said possibility. There is certainly a possibility of military intervention along the Mexican border and in fact, some National Guard troops are already there. A few rounds shot at them from the other side of the border by the "Mexican Army" (usually on drug payroll in N. Mexico) and it could be trouble.
We are effectively engaged in blockading Zimbabwe as we speak. The possibility of conflict is not that far removed.
2) If the criteria is "plan to attack," add Canada, France, and Germany to the list. We have war plans to attack everyone in the world in some capacity.
- - -
Not saying any of those contingents is likely, but you were talking about "possibilities" and those I listed are at the top of the list.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
I find it very deserving of scrutiny if the very POSSIBILITY exists.
1) You didn't say "plan to attack," you said possibility. There is certainly a possibility of military intervention along the Mexican border and in fact, some National Guard troops are already there. A few rounds shot at them from the other side of the border by the "Mexican Army" (usually on drug payroll in N. Mexico) and it could be trouble.
We are effectively engaged in blockading Zimbabwe as we speak. The possibility of conflict is not that far removed.
2) If the criteria is "plan to attack," add Canada, France, and Germany to the list. We have war plans to attack everyone in the world in some capacity.
- - -
Not saying any of those contingents is likely, but you were talking about "possibilities" and those I listed are at the top of the list.
You are smarter than this. You know full well the situation with Iran is different than any of the other examples you list. You are just arguing over a technicality of how what I typed can be interpreted.
I was not trying to be obtuse. I honestly do not think we will take any direct action with Iran in spite of their clear nuclear ambitions. Iran has Russia as a protectorate and it seems likely we could use Israel as a proxy.
I think we largely agree on the substance, so I'll leave it there.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Anyone have a people sized plastic grocery bag handy there is a turd on the forum that needs disposed of.......
War might seem like a TV program on CNN to you, but to me, I find it very deserving of scrutiny if the very POSSIBILITY exists.
Hey dingus...I dont watch CNN...Not to mention the fact you can't do anything about it.....Looks like this will be a double bagger folks....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Anyone have a people sized plastic grocery bag handy there is a turd on the forum that needs disposed of.......
War might seem like a TV program on CNN to you, but to me, I find it very deserving of scrutiny if the very POSSIBILITY exists.
Hey dingus...I dont watch CNN...Not to mention the fact you can't do anything about it.....Looks like this will be a double bagger folks....
So, in summary, your response to any discussion on the matter is "feces"?
CF, I agree with most of your positions except for one...$150 oil does actually have a great deal to do with the war. The funny/someone unspoken reason that oil is that high is directly because of two things, consumption is up and the value of the dollar is down. Both share the bed with the War.
Having spend a year in Iraq as a combat medic I can say with some amount of authority, we made a mistake.
But like you said, little we can do about it now but "clean up our mess". This is where folks tend to split...on the definition of "mess". Which mess? Our economy or Iraq? Unfortunately, even having Iraqi friends who still live there, I would chose the former any day. We are worthless to Iraq and to a hundred other nations if our economy is broke and we lose super power status.
If we do not quite spending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas, and don't stop borrowing 10 billion a month from China, we are going to be in a world of hurt...no pun intended.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Anyone have a people sized plastic grocery bag handy there is a turd on the forum that needs disposed of.......
War might seem like a TV program on CNN to you, but to me, I find it very deserving of scrutiny if the very POSSIBILITY exists.
Hey dingus...I dont watch CNN...Not to mention the fact you can't do anything about it.....Looks like this will be a double bagger folks....
So, in summary, your response to any discussion on the matter is "feces"?
When thats what the poster is full of...Yes....
CBS News: A top Iraqi official said Sunday there was no "conclusive" evidence that Shiite extremists have been directly supplied with some Iranian arms as alleged by the United States. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Iraq does not want trouble with any country, "especially Iran."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/iraq/main4069224.shtml
Since the Iraqi army and intelligence agencies are the better qualified ones to make that discussion, being well trained and highly professional, I think we should trust them. Also, I doubt their opinion is skewed by the statement immediately following his conclusions.
The American personnel in the field that have determined the high grade explosives and formed charges were Iranian (as well as the Iranian advisor's they have caught in Iraq, the explosives with Iranian charge signatures, and Iranian military equipment seized) are probably all wrong.
Conclusive? No, short of finding a note "Dear Terrorists, here are the weapons you have ordered. XoXo Iran" it is not conclusive. But either the Iraqi's have a home grown munition plant pumping out world class charges, or they are getting them from somewhere else.
Israel, aligned with US for Iran war
Fri, 02 May 2008 20:40:29
Israel has tacitly aligned itself with Washington, raising the specter of a war on Iran even if it has to go 'alone with the problem'.
In a Friday interview with the Yediot Aharonot, senior Israeli minister Ehud Barak made his newest accusations against Iran, claiming that Tehran is attempting to develop a nuclear bomb in two years.
"It's possible that it may take another two years, maybe four ...it's all the same if international pressure and other possibilities don't stop the process," claimed the official.
Barak then threatened Iran, suggesting that Israel is fully prepared to launch a military attack on Tehran but refrained to elaborate on the subject.
"Israel is the strongest country in the entire region, even at a range of 1,500 kilometers," Barak continued. Israel is 'prepared to be alone with the problem'.
His comments follow a burst of media speculation that the Tuesday entry of a second US aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf, in what the Pentagon had termed a 'reminder' of US power, was a tacit declaration of war on Iran.
Israel has been preparing for war for several months now. It recently launched a five-day preparation operation to 'test emergency response' against what it calls 'raining missiles' from countries like Iran and Syria.
This is while the Islamic Republic has never waged war on any other country and comments used by Israeli officials to demonize Tehran have been clearly manipulated to their benefit and according to Iran have been 'taken out of context'.
Political analysts say because 'Washington and allies' have failed to gain full-throated support against Iran over its nuclear program, they are now shifting their focus onto 'creating an illusion of Iranian provocation of violence' in the oil-rich Mideast to 'prepare the public for a war on Iran'.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=54039§ionid=351020101
Can't everyone just admit that Israel is more than capable of defending itself from Iran or anyone else? They have a nuclear arsenal of an estimated 150-250 nukes, and missiles and aircraft and submarines capable of delivering them, as well as defenses to stop any possible Iranian attack. When Hillary says she will obliterate Iran if they attack Israel, my response is: "Why, when all that will be left for our missiles is radioactive dust from Israel's nuclear counterstrike?"