US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

[BlueQuarter]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b69_1204052385

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

The sand-rabbits runnin' the country will have a field day over that one...

The truth is, the good people of America don't need or want another war. Under any circumstance... Win or lose, it's not good for either side and may set them back. oh... 15 years on their Nuclear capability. I say, a civilized nation such as Iran should have the ability to go Nuclear, as India and Pakistan have.

Sure, we don't agree with all their laws, but should they not have the right as a nation. Millions of people wanting this...

You guys really must exam in bigger picture and realize it's not as easy as you may think to build a nuclear weapon when you country is under heavy watch and sanctions. There are inspectors in the facilities.. There isn't much to hide. They see all the tunnels and routes and most anything hidden "secret".

Can't build a nuke in a hidden closet, get real.

I say, just increase the watch. More inspectors. 24 hour watch and review of all plans. All imports and exports. Full authority to all IAIE [Whatever it is called] personnelle. Just keep shit out in the open...

I would say additional sanctions, but they hurt the good people of Iran more than the government. Basically, the gov't can't fly and some assets frozen.

So, what do you think?

[droogsteve]

I don't believe that Iran is a threat. Even if they had nukes, they know perfectly well that a attack on Israel or anyone else would mean their complete and utter destruction. Not to mention they simply lack the delivery capability to attack the US or Europe.


Whether you trust Iran or not, an attack simply isn't feasible. A preemptive nuclear strike killing hundreds of thousands would make us nothing more than murderers, and between Afghanistan and Iraq, our military resources are stretched too thin already. We simply don't have the troops for an invasion and occupation of Iran unless we implement a massive draft, and no politician is going to propose such a politically disastrous measure.

[Jenovah]

I do not agree with any kind of invasion of Iran, that would only be asking for more trouble since the US is already in Iraq and Afghanistan, once we have stabilized those countries (whenever that may happen) then an invasion may only be considered when it is proven that they have the intention of using nukes, which I don't see happening.

[Bo Jackson]

Let's try to learn from history here. America's past preemptive wars have been disasters and accomplished nothing. What would make this one different?

[Fungus Amungus]

I don't think we will be invading Iran within this presidency. There's no time left to do anything. Iran's military is also more specialized and loyal than what Iraq was.

[_Joe]

Let's try to learn from history here. America's past preemptive wars have been disasters and accomplished nothing. What would make this one different?

Which ones (besides Irag and arguably the Spanish American War) have been preemptive?

[Bo Jackson]

Which ones (besides Irag and arguably the Spanish American War) have been preemptive?

Vietnam. Don't tell me it wasn't a war either. I think the 59,000 people that died there would disagree.

[droogsteve]

Vietnam. Don't tell me it wasn't a war either. I think the 59,000 people that died there would disagree.


It most certainly was a war, but it wasn't preemptive. No one claimed that the US was in any danger whatsoever from North Vietnam or the Viet Cong.


We allied ourselves with South Vietnam in a civil war as part of our anti-communist cold war "domino theory" policy. That's quite different than preemption.

[Nocturnal]

It most certainly was a war, but it wasn't preemptive. No one claimed that the US was in any danger whatsoever from North Vietnam or the Viet Cong.


We allied ourselves with South Vietnam in a civil war as part of our anti-communist cold war "domino theory" policy. That's quite different than preemption.

I'm not certain it's a huge difference. We actively entered into the conflict to prevent the spread of the North. We also seemed to have faked the cassius belli in order to become fully involved.

[Bo Jackson]

It most certainly was a war, but it wasn't preemptive. No one claimed that the US was in any danger whatsoever from North Vietnam or the Viet Cong.


We allied ourselves with South Vietnam in a civil war as part of our anti-communist cold war "domino theory" policy. That's quite different than preemption.

I see it as preemptive in that we were trying to prevent the spread of communism. I probably should rephrase my original statement to say wars brought on by fear have ended poorly for us (i.e. Vietnam, Iraq).

[droogsteve]

I'm not certain it's a huge difference. We actively entered into the conflict to prevent the spread of the North.

The US goal was containment, as in preventing the Communist North from overrunning the South, in a conflict that predated our involvement there. Preventing the North from occupying the South is far different than preemption, which would have meant invading and occupying the North before they attacked the South. We never attempted that, nor did South Vietnam under our advice. We responded to the North's attempts to unite the country under it's rule. That is not preemption.


It's the difference between shooting someone who breaks into your home and shooting someone on their own property because you think they want to break into your home.

We also seemed to have faked the cassius belli in order to become fully involved.


If you're referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, it quite possibly was faked. The Resolution that followed did give Johnson the authority to escalate, but again, that escalation was not preemptive. The conflict was already ongoing.

[_Joe]

I'm not certain it's a huge difference. We actively entered into the conflict to prevent the spread of the North. We also seemed to have faked the cassius belli in order to become fully involved.

The war was already going on. We jumped in on the side of Democracy. It would have been preemptive if there weren't a war already going on. Also, just because the war may have been technically illegal doesn't make it preemptive.

[Dayve]

It's nice to see at least 5 of the higer ups in the American military have some common sense.

[IrishNed]

It's nice to see at least 5 of the higer ups in the American military have some common sense.Where were these people when Bush decided to Invade Iraq?

They were probably Field Grade Officers: Majors or Lieutenant Colonels in the Army or Marine Corps - Lieutenant Commanders or Commanders in the NAVY. They have advanced quickly in rank, due to the Iraq war and turnover among the Flag Officers. Now, they got theirs and they can feel justified taking a Moral stance.

They won't resign; they'll Retire with a fat Pension, maybe write a book and be an expert Military Advisor for Fox News Channel. Some will run for Political Office.

[pentupentropy]

Iran should have the capability to develop nuclear weapons. They are surrounded by nuclear countries and have no defense should one of the other countries become hostile and threatens them. What the hell do we care if they have them anyway?

[anti-liberal]

I believe that if Iran wishes to obtain Nuclear capability, they must follow a strict path layed out by the International Community which would allow for total and complete oversight- perhaps even control - of the Iranian Nuclear Program.

If and when any deviations from peaceful purposes are noticed, make sure they will feel the consequences, be it through military action or otherwise.

Ensure that Iran does not have in its possession all the pieces to the Nuclear puzzle, and that thier ensured use of Nuclear energy is in the hands of the International Community. This could be accomplished by withholding certain bits of key information and materials that only the International Community can provide. Of course, we would have to be very vigilant in stopping those who would hope to smuggle the necessary materials into Iran.

Maybe after a 15 to 20 year period of undisturbed perfection from the Iranians as pertaining to their Nuclear program, then perhaps they can be allowed "Nuclear Independance".

Until they decide to comply with these proposed standards or similar one, I believe they don't deserve to have shit as far nuclear goes.

Why should we worry if they have them anyway?

For the very same reason we are worried about Pakistan having them. Iran's government likely has very influential radical elements working inside of it. If they somehow get control of radioactive material, or worse, an actual nuclear device, you can bet your ass Israel's gonna have a slight increase in cancer patients that year.

[Fender]

theres no good reason for iran to have nuclear weapons though, or any countries in that area of the world if you ask me. but its not worth going to war over.

and they should definitely be watched over, thats not even a question.

[pentupentropy]

there's no good reason for anyone to have nuclear weapons. the people who would be killed by the weapons would not be the people who needed to die

[shade]

I don't believe that Iran is a threat. Even if they had nukes, they know perfectly well that a attack on Israel or anyone else would mean their complete and utter destruction. Not to mention they simply lack the delivery capability to attack the US or Europe.


Whether you trust Iran or not, an attack simply isn't feasible. A preemptive nuclear strike killing hundreds of thousands would make us nothing more than murderers, and between Afghanistan and Iraq, our military resources are stretched too thin already. We simply don't have the troops for an invasion and occupation of Iran unless we implement a massive draft, and no politician is going to propose such a politically disastrous measure.

I would like to add on to your draft comment.

Back in Viet Nam, they were able to do a draft because many in the public saw responding to the call of duty as a patriotic thing to do to fight off the communists.

Most of the people who would think their patriotic duty is to kill muslims are too old and fat to do the fighting anyway. It is simply not the same. The protests of the 60s will be a day in disney land compared to what would happen in this time period.

The government would literally face outright rebellion, possibly (likely) involving blood.

The only PC way to do a draft would be to include women this round. No father or husband would let that happen. I very literally would kill any person who tried to take my wife off to a war. I would cut off their head and mail it to the pentagon.

[Azwethinkweizm]

Vietnam was a US victory.

Jesus christ, learn history people

[camjoe87]

Vietnam was a US victory.

Jesus christ, learn history people
Hm..I'm not quite sure what to say about this.

Could you explain what was accomplished from the vietnam war?

[Yuseke]

Hm..I'm not quite sure what to say about this.

Could you explain what was accomplished from the vietnam war?

It created the hippies which put the wheels in motion to create rock music. Live and Let Rock!

[Bo Jackson]

Vietnam was a US victory.

Jesus christ, learn history people

Shit son, we couldn't even figure out what to do to achieve victory, much less do it. We accomplished nothing there besides leaving behind a large death toll and some Vietnamerican kids.

[clutch-monkey]

Vietnam was a US victory.

Jesus christ, learn history people

you could argue it was a military victory...but still a strategic loss given the initial objectives.

[shade]

Vietnam was a US victory.

Jesus christ, learn history people

We retreated and the north took over the south and they are communist today.

[camjoe87]

We retreated and the north took over the south and they are communist today.Clearly a US victory.

[Quick_Draw21]

I believe that if Iran wishes to obtain Nuclear capability, they must follow a strict path layed out by the International Community which would allow for total and complete oversight- perhaps even control - of the Iranian Nuclear Program.

You should tell that to Israel which has something around 300 nuclear warheads and is not even a signatory on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty!!!

If and when any deviations from peaceful purposes are noticed, make sure they will feel the consequences, be it through military action or otherwise.

I remember hearing all these congressmen saying that a nuclear strike wasn't off the table if Iran had nuclear weapons. Irony at its finest, if it wasn't for the millions of lives that would be wiped out from this.

Ensure that Iran does not have in its possession all the pieces to the Nuclear puzzle, and that thier ensured use of Nuclear energy is in the hands of the International Community. This could be accomplished by withholding certain bits of key information and materials that only the International Community can provide. Of course, we would have to be very vigilant in stopping those who would hope to smuggle the necessary materials into Iran.

What happened to national sovereignty?? They are surrounded by nations with nuclear weapons, and as someone mentioned earlier they really have no means to deter a nuclear strike if someone want to do so. How many countries has IRan attacked in the past few years, decades, centuries?

Maybe after a 15 to 20 year period of undisturbed perfection from the Iranians as pertaining to their Nuclear program, then perhaps they can be allowed "Nuclear Independance".

Until they decide to comply with these proposed standards or similar one, I believe they don't deserve to have shit as far nuclear goes.[/QUOTE]

What gives you the right ti decide who gets to keep nuclear weapons and who doesn't? Because you think they might smuggle them off to a terrorist group? Hell the only country to even use nuclear weapons was the US (I am not here to argue whether it was justified or not :rolleyes: ), so shouldn't the US government be the last person to decide who gets to use them?

For the very same reason we are worried about Pakistan having them. Iran's government likely has very influential radical elements working inside of it. If they somehow get control of radioactive material, or worse, an actual nuclear device, you can bet your ass Israel's gonna have a slight increase in cancer patients that year.

Yet Pakistan has had them for how many years now? They are arguably far more chummy with extremist groups then Iran. Have there been any nuclear attacks carried out by terrorists or anyone at all for that matter?

[TFS]

I would like to add on to your draft comment.

Back in Viet Nam, they were able to do a draft because many in the public saw responding to the call of duty as a patriotic thing to do to fight off the communists.

Most of the people who would think their patriotic duty is to kill muslims are too old and fat to do the fighting anyway. It is simply not the same. The protests of the 60s will be a day in disney land compared to what would happen in this time period.

The government would literally face outright rebellion, possibly (likely) involving blood.

The only PC way to do a draft would be to include women this round. No father or husband would let that happen. I very literally would kill any person who tried to take my wife off to a war. I would cut off their head and mail it to the pentagon.

So women are not equal to men in your eyes? Why should any wife let their husband be taken off to war if you feel this way about your wife?

Women are just as able-bodied as men. Yes, it would suck horrendously, but if my significant other were drafted, then she would be drafted. I'd not like it, but she is able-bodied and able to contribute to the efforts desired by our military. Therefore, in my opinion, as much as I hate the idea of any loved on of mine being in a position like that, I cannot argue the justification of her being considered for being drafted like men are considered for a draft.

If women want equal rights, they damn well better be ready and willing to accept equal responsibility. To suggest otherwise as acceptable is sexist.

In my training, in my course for technical engineering, women were outnumbered across 3 military branches 10 to 1, and they scored at or near the top of their classes in every class that women were in. There is no reason, if they can contribute as well as or better than any man, that they should not be eligible to be forced to do so like men are and have been for over 2 centuries.

[Johnny Promo]

Let's try to learn from history here. America's past preemptive wars have been disasters and accomplished nothing. What would make this one different?

It seems as though there is a Taget Du Jour now...

[anti-liberal]

You should tell that to Israel which has something around 300 nuclear warheads and is not even a signatory on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty!!!

I'll resond to this with your own words....

What happened to national sovereignty?? They are surrounded by nations with nuclear weapons, and as someone mentioned earlier they really have no means to deter a nuclear strike if someone want to do so.

Israel is actually completely surrounded by enemies who have sworn to destroy them, and have actually tried to in the past(6-Day War?). Iran has friends in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that their military manpower is over 15 times what Israel has to offer. So by your own definition, they should be allowed to have Nuclear capability. Not to mention the fact that given thier situation, they have shown the utmost in restraint.

I remember hearing all these congressmen saying that a nuclear strike wasn't off the table if Iran had nuclear weapons. Irony at its finest, if it wasn't for the millions of lives that would be wiped out from this.

The United States is not taking any military options off the table. The "nuclear strike" you refer to is actually just allowing the use of tactical nukes that would be capable of penetrating Iranian bunkers and Nuclear facilities that are too hard for even our latest Bunker-Busters™.

That does not, however, necessarily mean that anything is actually likely to happen, nor does it mean that Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons. I do not see what good would be done by announcing what the U.S. Military is or is not willing to do.

What gives you the right ti decide who gets to keep nuclear weapons and who doesn't? Because you think they might smuggle them off to a terrorist group? Hell the only country to even use nuclear weapons was the US (I am not here to argue whether it was justified or not ), so shouldn't the US government be the last person to decide who gets to use them?


Where did I say that the United States alone should be responsible for surveiling Iran's potential nuclear program? I explicity stated that the International Community - The United Nations, and its watchdog agency the IAEA in particular - should collectively bear the responsibility for keeping tabs on Iran's nuclear program, should they decide to comply with the full regulations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Yet Pakistan has had them for how many years now? They are arguably far more chummy with extremist groups then Iran. Have there been any nuclear attacks carried out by terrorists or anyone at all for that matter?

You do realize that the United States has been keeping a close watch on Pakistan's Nuclear arsenal since 2001, right? Maybe that could be a reason for no nuclear attacks of any kind occuring in recent history.

...so shouldn't the US government be the last person to decide who gets to use them?

Perhaps our current unbroken 7-year track record of safeguarding Pakistan's nuclear weapons would persuade you otherwise?

[Sketcher]

I don't see Bush attacking (whether through invasion or air strikes) Iran. I see more sanctions at most. Bush has less than a year left in office with the very high possibility of a Democrat taking over. He's not going to start something that he knows won't last more than a year. If he attacks Iran, he's going to want to make sure the entire conflict will go HIS way and he knows he won't be able to do that. He also knows that any more war will result in a sure win for the Dems in November. The only chance Repubs have of keeping the White House is for Iraq to continue to do well.

[Quick_Draw21]

I'll resond to this with your own words....

So then why the double standard?



Israel is actually completely surrounded by enemies who have sworn to destroy them, and have actually tried to in the past(6-Day War?). Iran has friends in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that their military manpower is over 15 times what Israel has to offer. So by your own definition, they should be allowed to have Nuclear capability. Not to mention the fact that given thier situation, they have shown the utmost in restraint.

Iraq and Afghanistan are "friends" with Iran? lol. You do realize that both of those countries are swarming with American troops right? Not to mention the Persian gulf and the Persian gulf states being virtual islands of deployment for the US. How is Syria, Iran's friend? Syria is a majority Sunni country with a dictator. Just because Bush claims they are part of the axis of evil doesn't mean they are allies.

Oh and who cares about manpower? Nuclear weapons are all about deterrence not actually using them. Not to mention Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world, not to mention their superior air power.

Also Israel has not shown restraint. They know that they cannot declare full scale war on all the Arabs in the region otherwise they would've turned the region into glass along time ago. Hell they even attacked a US ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)and gunned down those that survived the initial assault, claiming it was Arabs to do their dirty work for them.

How many countries/territories has Israel attacked in the past century and how many people have Iran attacked?



The United States is not taking any military options off the table. The "nuclear strike" you refer to is actually just allowing the use of tactical nukes that would be capable of penetrating Iranian bunkers and Nuclear facilities that are too hard for even our latest Bunker-Busters™.

You are missing the whole point. What right does the US have to threaten Iran with nuclear strikes if they don't comply with what the US says in regards to their own sovereignty?

That does not, however, necessarily mean that anything is actually likely to happen, nor does it mean that Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons. I do not see what good would be done by announcing what the U.S. Military is or is not willing to do.

It's called a threat.


Where did I say that the United States alone should be responsible for surveiling Iran's potential nuclear program? I explicity stated that the International Community - The United Nations, and its watchdog agency the IAEA in particular - should collectively bear the responsibility for keeping tabs on Iran's nuclear program, should they decide to comply with the full regulations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Time and again the IAEA has not been able to find anything indicative of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Also if you haven't noticed Israel is not a signatory.

You do realize that the United States has been keeping a close watch on Pakistan's Nuclear arsenal since 2001, right? Maybe that could be a reason for no nuclear attacks of any kind occuring in recent history.

Perhaps our current unbroken 7-year track record of safeguarding Pakistan's nuclear weapons would persuade you otherwise?

They have possessed nuclear weapons for over 20 years.