The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

The Brits are reporting that Bush's war plans for Iran are so stupid and unsupportable that a number of U.S. Generals plan to resign rather than oder troops to attack Iran.

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle. ... 434540.ece

You've got to be kidding me? A poorly sourced article stating that a few generals might quit if an extremely unlikely scenario were to actually unfold is a far cry from a military coup!

(a) Story by Sermour Hersch in New Yorker says that planners are ready with a plan to bomb Iran, if someone (Congress??? After Iraq???) gives them permision.

(b) No matter what the Bush government -> Murdoch propaganda machine says about Iran, can anyone name the division(s) that would be sent to invade that country? If not, this is just noise.

jazzskins wrote:You've got to be kidding me? A poorly sourced article stating that a few generals might quit if an extremely unlikely scenario were to actually unfold is a far cry from a military coup!

Your characterization of the article is a far cry from being accurate. Your implication that I predict a military coup is also inaccurate. Do you know what a military coup is? Do you know what I said in my post?

can anyone name the division(s) that would be sent to invade that country?

There's a difference between "bombing" and an invasion.

That's the point. The US could bomb places in Iran. Bomb and fly away. That's all.

According to the Post and the Times, both Marine and Army commanders have warned that it would take infantry to find and dismantle Iranian "nuclear weapons facilities".

Do you know any spare infantry divisions free to invade a country twice the size of Iraq with triple the population, and mountains rather than desert?

crazyhorse1 wrote:The Brits are reporting that Bush's war plans for Iran are so stupid and unsupportable that a number of U.S. Generals plan to resign rather than oder troops to attack Iran.

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle. ... 434540.ece

This is the liberal plan, you have 100 generals and find "4 or 5" liberals willing to critize him.

Now, which are the only "4 or 5" you will EVER hear in the liberal media? The military is overall strongly pro-Bush and for his policies. I am not, but portraying them as not is just left media spin.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

jazzskins wrote:You've got to be kidding me? A poorly sourced article stating that a few generals might quit if an extremely unlikely scenario were to actually unfold is a far cry from a military coup!

Your characterization of the article is a far cry from being accurate. Your implication that I predict a military coup is also inaccurate. Do you know what a military coup is? Do you know what I said in my post?

I would have to concur, Crazyhorse, that what you say here appears true. On the other hand, you may wish to check history. Numerous senior officers, including flag grade officers, have resigned from the military in protest of decisions made by the C in C, over virtually the entire history of the United States.

Bill Clinton lost his fair share of good officers, in his day. Typically, they choose to retire, and do so quietly. It is news only when it fits certain criteria for "newsworthiness".

crazyhorse1 wrote:

jazzskins wrote:You've got to be kidding me? A poorly sourced article stating that a few generals might quit if an extremely unlikely scenario were to actually unfold is a far cry from a military coup!

Your characterization of the article is a far cry from being accurate. Your implication that I predict a military coup is also inaccurate. Do you know what a military coup is? Do you know what I said in my post?

I would have to concur, Crazyhorse, that what you say here appears true. On the other hand, you may wish to check history. Numerous senior officers, including flag grade officers, have resigned from the military in protest of decisions made by the C in C, over virtually the entire history of the United States.

Bill Clinton lost his fair share of good officers, in his day. Typically, they choose to retire, and do so quietly. It is news only when it fits certain criteria for "newsworthiness".

Do you know any spare infantry divisions free to invade a country twice the size of Iraq with triple the population, and mountains rather than desert?

My point was that Hirsch wasn't reporting an invasion wasn't imminent (I never read it, am I wrong) but a bombing campaign might be. What is your point? Are you suggesting that bombing Iran would be a good idea? I'm not.

The only way to resolve the Iran problem is to use military action. Using the "you better not do this threats" will never work. The leader of Iran wants to bring "allah" back and he thinks this will speed up the process. If we attack Iran, we had better be prepared for war with Russia and China.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

jazzskins wrote:You've got to be kidding me? A poorly sourced article stating that a few generals might quit if an extremely unlikely scenario were to actually unfold is a far cry from a military coup!

Your characterization of the article is a far cry from being accurate. Your implication that I predict a military coup is also inaccurate. Do you know what a military coup is? Do you know what I said in my post?

I don't think that it is. What did you intend people to think with the headline, "Generals Revolt" ? ? ?

Did you want us to think that they thumbed their noses? No, you wanted us to think that they would stand down, or worse.

re·volt
1. to break away from or rise against constituted authority, as by open rebellion; cast off allegiance or subjection to those in authority; rebel; mutiny: to revolt against the present government.

coup
1. a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force [syn: coup d'etat]

You're too good a writer to have not understood what you were writing...you chose that word specifically to evoke that meaning.

jazzskins wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

jazzskins wrote:You've got to be kidding me? A poorly sourced article stating that a few generals might quit if an extremely unlikely scenario were to actually unfold is a far cry from a military coup!

Your characterization of the article is a far cry from being accurate. Your implication that I predict a military coup is also inaccurate. Do you know what a military coup is? Do you know what I said in my post?

I don't think that it is. What did you intend people to think with the headline, "Generals Revolt" ? ? ?

Did you want us to think that they thumbed their noses? No, you wanted us to think that they would stand down, or worse.

re·volt
1. to break away from or rise against constituted authority, as by open rebellion; cast off allegiance or subjection to those in authority; rebel; mutiny: to revolt against the present government.

coup
1. a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force [syn: coup d'etat]

You're too good a writer to have not understood what you were writing...you chose that word specifically to evoke that meaning.

OK, now while I like and respect Crazyhorse, I don't think anyone's going to exactly say I've been his strongest supporter for these issues and I think finding a couple liberal generals willing to embarass Bush for partisan gain is a non-story since none of it gets us out of the middle east.

But, I think this "revolt" argument is absurd. I do not actually think it was the best choice of words, but having read the thread I see no indication Crazyhorse was believing, advocating or even suggesting it possible anyone was going to overthrow anyone and think that part's a bit silly.

It is while again not being the best word not an innacurate use to say that resigning would be revolting with the consequences they are gone. Personally I think this is a strong argument FOR attacking Iran to get rid of pansy assed politically motivated Generals, but that's another point.

I am serious though I think quibbling over the use of the word revolt here is silly though.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:OK, now while I like and respect Crazyhorse, ......
But, I think this "revolt" argument is absurd. I do not actually think it was the best choice of words, but having read the thread I see no indication Crazyhorse was believing, advocating or even suggesting it possible anyone was going to overthrow anyone and think that part's a bit silly.

I'm glad that you are able to state that clearly and objectively. I don't think that Crazy actually meant that with his post, but I do think he titled the post that way intentionally with the intent of flaming the fires!