 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Donuel Date: 28 Feb 07 - 05:38 PM As you know Pakistan has a stockpile of nuclear weapons. When the USA launches an attack on Iran this spring it will have to do so by air from Iraq and the two carrier battle groups in the Gulf. Cheney wants affirmation that blowback from the US invasion will not include Pakistani nukes. Afterall America may indeed use nkes themselves although they will be call low yield strategic weapons. There is a rumor in the wind that when the invasion is called, a large number of US generals and admirals will resign rather than obey the order. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: GUEST Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:56 PM Too bad they missed him at Bagram. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Nickhere Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:57 PM The whole business of the current US administration invading Iraq and threatening to invade Iran reminds me of an old Aesop's fable. There was once this wolf who was very hungry. He had made up his mind to eat one of the nice young lambs that lived over on the other side of the hill. Trouble was, he had gone round telling everyone that he was a reasonable wolf, a gentleman wolf and not like those bad wolves you hear of. He felt that if he was going to eat the lamb he should at least have some good excuse so no-one would acuse of him of simply being a savage wolf just like all the other wolves. So he went up to the lamb one day and said "you know, last year you ate my dinner and I had to go hungry and so now I have a right to eat you". The lamb was very frightened but managed to keep composed long enough to point out "but Mr.Wolf, I don't know you - I've never even met you and I don't think I would be able to eat anything a wolf eats". The wolf was annoyed his first excuse had failed but he was soon ready with a new one. "Well, what about those dreadful insults you made about my mother, then?" The lamb again replied "but as I said, I don't even know you, let alone your mother. How could I make such insults about someone I don't even know". At that the wolf (who was getting hungrier arguing with his dinner all the time) lost his patience and snapped "well, I'ma wolf and I'm hungry and I'm going to eat you up!" And so he did. The moral of the story: people who want to do evil don't need an excuse, in the end they will just do it anyway. And in the 2,500 years since Aesop wrote that, nothing has changed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: GUEST,282RA Date: 28 Feb 07 - 07:12 PM That certainly sizes up Bush and his administration. Like when Cheney recently said that even if there had been no WMD rumors, they would have invaded Iraq anyway. Well, then, what the hell was all false claims stuff about then, Mr. Dick? If you were just going to go ahead and invade no matter what then just do it! Don't lie to me about deadly weapons and uranium purchases and secret meetings in Prague. If you don't need a reason, don't bother giving us one. Just do it. Basically, Cheney just admitted the moral of the fable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: dianavan Date: 28 Feb 07 - 07:23 PM Donuel - I wouldn't worry too much about the U.S. using nuclear weapons on Iran. Don't forget, Iran seems to be quite friendly with Russia, China and India. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Feb 07 - 07:59 PM Yes, but will Russia, China or India go to war with the USA over an American attack on Iran? I think not. They will be horrified and very upset about it, but they will probably not risk all and go to war over it. They will instead look to forming nuclear defence alliances to protect themselves against the USA, the most likely alliance being between Russia and China, they will bite their tongues, and they will wait... And the USA will dig itself deeper into the incredible hole it is already in, establishing itself worldwide as the most feared and despised rogue nation since Nazi Germany. Europe will be equally horrified (as Russia or China), but they will also wait. The American ground forces will be faced with an ever-worsening situation on the ground in central Asia and the Middle East as guerilla warfar against them increases, and they may see the collapse of a number of so far compliant Muslim governments as rebellions occur in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere, and their puppet stooges in those places go down like the Shah did in Iran and are replaced by violently anti-American factions. Things will get worse. Much worse. There will probably eventually be a nuclear retaliation on some city or cities in either the USA or Israel...or both...but it will be done by stealth, not by a normal military attack. An Al-Queda type operation, in other words. That would be my best guess, if I were to hazard one about what is coming in the next year or two. If I were someone high in the US military's chain of command I would be in favor of a military coup to arrest Bush and Cheney immediately if they order a strike on Iran, particularly if it involves nuclear weapons. Those men are war criminals. They have got to be stopped. If Congress has not the will or presence of mind to stop them, then the US military should do it. And without delay...providing Bush gives the order to pre-emptively attack another country, any other country, but particularly if that order involves the use of nuclear weapons. It is a line that simply must not be crossed. To do so is to open Pandora's box once and for all and let the demons loose. Donuel, I think you are correct about Cheney's reason for going to Pakistan. If the attack on Iran comes, it will probably come within a month or two from now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Peace Date: 28 Feb 07 - 08:16 PM "although they will be call low yield strategic weapons." I doubt that, Don. Tactical, not strategic. Strategic weapons become tactical once ya use them. The difference is a small one--in fact, the difference doesn't really exist except in the minds of people who love to dicker over this stuff. There are three facets of military action: Strategic, Tactical and Logistical. STRATEGY Etymology: Greek stratEgia generalship, from stratEgos 1 a (1) : the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2) : the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions TACTICS Etymology: New Latin tactica, from Greek taktikE, from feminine of taktikos 1 : a device for accomplishing an end 2 : a method of employing forces in combat LOGISTICS Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction Etymology: French logistique art of calculating, logistics, from Greek logistikE art of calculating, from feminine of logistikos of calculation, from logizein to calculate, from logos reason 1 : the aspect of military science dealing with the procurement, maintenance, and transportation of military matériel, facilities, and personnel 2 : the handling of the details of an operation (The above is from the Merriam-Webster dictionary on the www, located with a Google of dictionary.) As always, strategy is determined by civilian leadership, elected officials. Tactics will be determined at the theater level, and the pros will be attending to logistics (no doubt with some really good contracts for Halliburton again). I think war with Iran will not come to pass so easily (unless there is a 'fabricated attack' on the US mainland, something I would not put past the Neocon Rulers), because Congress will not buy the bullshit they bought just after 9-11. It will be difficult for the Bush administration to manufacture the propaganda they'd need to get Americans onside with the program. BTW, it's good to see you back posting again. I have missed you, buddy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Rapparee Date: 28 Feb 07 - 09:03 PM I don't think that the US will attack Iran. There simply isn't the strength. The military is tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the needed equipment is in short, short supply. In short, the US Army is currently short on depth -- like the Chinese Army is, but for a different reason. I doubt that there will be any "military coup" in the US. What there might very well be is a refusal by the military to follow the commands of the President -- a mutiny, in other words. At that point the Congress had damned well better give a long, hard, steady pull on their collective ears and hear that proverbial POP! And then, the I-word and possible jail sentences or worse -- the President and Vice-President CAN be tried for treason. As for a nuclear attack on a US city, well, I'm mildly surprised it hasn't happened yet. I expect one within the next five years. Probably a port city -- NY, Baltimore, Boston, SF, LA, San Diego, Chicago, Detroit, etc. It will be an al-Qaida type of attack, possibly even detonated by a suicider. And it will not be an isolated instance, but there will be several attacks (probably of different types) happening at the same time. And you might find the US experiencing more types of terror attacks as happened at the Trolley Square Mall in SLC (no, I am NOT saying that the perpetrator was a terrorist as we think of one). Or car bombs. Or...use your imagination. The real terrorists certainly do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:18 PM Well thought out, Rapaire. I agree, those are all strong possibilities. I am, like you, mildly surprised that there has not yet been a nuclear terrorist strike carried out on American soil. I also think Peace raised a scenario that is quite plausible, as a very brief prelude to all-out war with Iran, that being a "fabricated attack", as he puts it. An arranged one, in other words. That attack could be launched on (1) a target in the USA (2) the USA fleet units in the Persian Gulf (3) Israel (4) US troops stationed in Iraq. It would have to be something quite dramatic and destructive which either crippled or sank an important American ship (carrier?)...or killed quite a large number of people (Americans or Israelis). That would give Mr Bush the panic and anger motivator he would need to quickly get public or at least Congressional support for yet another war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: dianavan Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:37 PM Iran has a legitimate reason to involve itself in the affairs of Iraq because of its geographical proximity. In fact, most countries would consider Irans interest, legitimately defensive. Here is an excellent article, well worth reading. "If Iran wants to see a friendly government established in Iraq, it hardly lacks for reasons. Unlike the United States, Iran was attacked by Iraq, back when Saddam's regime enjoyed American support as a bulwark against Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's revolution. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians died during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88). When Iraq used poison gas against Iranian troops, the United States uttered not a single protest. Not surprisingly, Iran wants to ensure that no government in Iraq will threaten it again. That's why Iran made no secret of its joy over Saddam's downfall, but it also refuses to accept a potentially hostile American base in the Persian Gulf or to cede absolute control over Iraq's future to the United States." http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/16781002.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Peace Date: 01 Mar 07 - 12:31 AM TP-AJAX Read about it. Then answer this: "What's new?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Peace Date: 01 Mar 07 - 01:14 AM "That would give Mr Bush the panic and anger motivator he would need to quickly get public or at least Congressional support for yet another war." Your thinking is good, LH, (not that it isn't on most things except Israel, -:)), but on this I wonder whether Congress might not ask to see the proof and take some time examining it. As Rap pointed out, the US just doesn't have the military strength (nor it seems the support of its people) to engage in yet another war. At least not without using a "nucular option". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Mar 07 - 01:46 AM That's one reason why I fear that they WILL use the nuclear option...because they lack the necessary strength with conventional forces. If we were dealing with rational, realistic men here, I would not be so worried. I don't think that Bush and Cheney ARE realistic or rational at this point, assuming they ever were. Look at it this way: If Bush doesn't consult Congress or anyone else, but just comes on TV, looking very somber, with a special nation-wide emergency announcement on all stations and says something like: "My fellow Americans, it is with a heavy heart...but an unshakeable belief in our liberty, our freedom and all that they stand for...that I must inform you that a few hours ago our naval and air units in the Persian Gulf were forced to respond to an unprecedented and unexpected attack by Iranian forces on the naval and land forces of the United States of American and its allies. I have authorized our military forces, the men and women in uniform...our sons and daughters...who have placed themselves on the front lines and risked their very lives that we might live in freedom...I have authorized those forces to use whatever level of force is necessary to repel these illegal and vicious attacks that have been launched by the fanatical fundamentalist regime in Tehran! As I speak, United States bombers and fighters are striking at the land, air, and naval forces of Iran, as well as targeting key Iranian defence and communications facilities deep in the interior of the country. We struck Tehran 1 hour ago. Our ships are fully engaged in supporting these efforts, and our land forces are in motion, defending the borders of Iraq from the possibility of imminent attack by Iranian army units who are massing on those borders in an offensive posture. We did not seek this confrontation! But we will not shy away from defending American lives when brazenly attacked, and etc...blah, blah, blah, blah (for the next 15 to 20 minutes...) (lies, lies, and yet more lies, accompanied by a frenzy of patriotic fervor) "Now let me show you on the screen here...could you bring up that screen, Dave?...great...Yeah, okay, you see these yellow arrows here? These are the places where our carrier aircraft are even now taking out Iran's offensive capability in a series of pinpoint surgical strikes designed to minimize civilian casualties and maximize our potential to degrade Iran's ability to..." (blah, blah, blah, rah, rah, rah) And so on. ********* It will be an accomplished fact at that point. It will already have happened. Will congress act to impeach or arrest a president in a country already plunged into open war? Probably not. Will the military people refuse to follow orders and mutiny? Probably not. But, hey, miracles have happened before. Maybe we'll get one, and they'll have the guts to say "no" this time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Mrrzy Date: 01 Mar 07 - 05:07 PM So close.... and yet so far... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: GUEST,Crazyhorse Date: 01 Mar 07 - 05:32 PM "In fact, most countries would consider Irans interest, legitimately defensive." If in that list you consider SA & most of the other arab states, think again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: GUEST,Crazyhorse Date: 01 Mar 07 - 05:35 PM I would just like to congratulate everybody here for resisting the temptation to respond to the "Web censorship" thread; an obvious conspiracy nut and troll. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Peace Date: 01 Mar 07 - 05:43 PM Maybe he was a troll, maybe not. Maybe he was wrong, maybe not. The fact that you disagree with him makes him neither of those things. You could be wrong on the issue. I will locate the link he gave and post it--non hotlinked--on this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Peace Date: 01 Mar 07 - 06:41 PM Here it is: http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/bbc_wtc_7_911_coverup_unraveling.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Donuel Date: 02 Mar 07 - 09:47 AM The subject of another SPRINGTIME invasion by the US does seem a bit trollish on its face but springtime is the preferred time of year that the US has chosen to wage middle east wars. 2 carrier battle groups are in the Gulf now and a "surge" is underway. I can't say if the surge is a pretense for new invasions but the Aesop fable does in fact cover all contingencies for a predatory nation. dianavan Will Nuclear fallout over Russia and China, and the whole world at large, push a multi national nuclear response to yet another belligerent US invasion? Perhaps not. But they could do it by proxy. What could Russia and China do to curb a rabid US war machine without using nukes? Everytime communist China "corrects" its market the US can lose serious money. So far they just fired an economic shot across our bow. China has a powerful deterent to a US war machine in the near total US dependence on the Chinese economy and treasury note holdings. Russia has great scaler weapons that can not be tracked or detected,,, and more oil than Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: dianavan Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:01 PM Ye, Donuel, they could do it by proxy but it would be a very stupid move. As you have mentioned, China has the ability to negatively effect the economy of many nations. Russia? I actually think that Russia may emerge as a nation capable of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Donuel Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:13 PM Yep, Iran is to Russia as Mexico is to the US. They are on the southern border and do a lot of trade. non sequetor: I just learned that Krushev never said "We will bury you !!!" The actual Russian translation was an old saying that said verbatim... "We will be present at your funeral." that is a huge difference in tone albeit still intimidating. JFK never said "I am a Berliner/ I am a citizen of Berlin. He actually said I am a brand name cookie by the name of 'Berliner'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Rapparee Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:18 PM China, India, and the EU hold most of the debt of the US. Were that debt called in and not "refinanced" the US economy would collapse. Believe it. I'm not making this up or simply expressing my own opinion. Research it yourself. Nuclear weapons are a "defensive" as a machine gun. Neither stop someone from attacking you, they just kill lots of people without determining whether or not the people are a threat to you. If you want a weapon that can be used both ways use a sword or a staff, not a projectile weapon. If Bush wants to fight anyone he'll need a draft. And I don't think he'd get it now. On September 12, 2001, yes. But not now. As for attacking in the Spring -- sure. You have a longer season of good weather for combat, and that holds true everywhere. Winter attacks, such as the Ardennes, are the exception and not the rule. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:20 PM Well, Kennedy intended to say "I am a Berliner", but his speechwriter got the words slightly wrong, not being as well acquainted with German colloquialisms as he ought to have been. What Kruschev meant was this: He thought that the Soviet economic and social system would succeed, while the Capitalist system in America would fail, and America would be left behind in the dustbin of history. He was mistaken. American cold warriors who were always looking for something to make people more paraniod about the Russians siezed upon his statement and chose to interpret it as a direct military threat. They did so for their own gain, and out of their own wishful thinking...playing the propaganda game, in other words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Wolfgang Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:17 PM Re Kennedy. There was no speechwriter error. Of course, some jokers later grabbed the opportunity of deliberately misunderstanding the sentence which in the context of the speech was perfect German. Just for fun, imagine how one could misunderstand the same sentence if said in Hamburg or Vienna: I am a Hamburger I am a Wiener Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:19 PM Heh! Yeah, that is amusing, Wolfgang. Specially the "wiener" example. The German audience in Berlin certainly showed a keen appreciation for what Kennedy said at the time, so the words were obviously good enough as far as they were concerned. It's odd how many of our North American fast food items are given names which are identical to some German word which means the inhabitant of some large city in central Europe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Cheney went to Pakistan From: Wolfgang Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:19 PM Amerikaner (American) is also a German word for a pastry: Recipe for an Amerikaner A German WWII joke using the double meaning was: How do You help our country win this war? Well, I eat an American/Amerikaner each day. And here's what we mean when we say "Englaender" and don't mean a person coming from England. Wolfgang |
&h=121&w=180&sz=4&hl=de&start=49&tbnid=qt4Z4v7zaM0mAM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dengl%25C3%25A4nder%26start%3D36%26ndsp%3D18%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN){kind=link}