Click on the woman, maximize the image,
check the bombs displayed on the strut, and
Mahmoud Rat Boy, picture YOUR NAME HERE
Posted on 02/24/2007 4:37:37 PM PST by Pokey78
To right, mop 'em up in Iran then onto North Korea. In fact while on the way relieve Pakistan of their nuclear capability too. After all they supplied Iran and North Korea with the equipment to process the nuclear material. Come to think of it who let them(the Pakistanis) keep their bomb in the first place? Oh yeah, the Bush administration. I'm clearly confused.
Perhaps it was a misunderstanding, as well as the vagueness of your original post. Now, that you have written in a more detailed manner, of course I agree with you.
"The attack on the Pentagon DID NOT BRING WASHINGTON DC TO A HALT."
I was in downtown Washington DC between the White House and the Capitol on 9/11. I don't know what you experienced but I can personally testify to panic in the streets as terrified commuters fled the city, causing a massive traffic jam. The confusion and fear on the street was palpable. People were shouting to get on buses, acting irrationally. A high-level individual in our organization caused a scandal by abandoning his female associate on Capitol Hill in a rush to get out of there. Our building was on lockdown and we were told to be prepared to spend the night as noone knew what was happening or what other attacks might occur.
General John Kerry and General Michael Moore...
The purpose was to allow the military and public safety personnel easy access to any other sites of possible attack.
I was here. I obeyed orders. I was back at work the next day at 6 AM.
Looking back on the post I agree it was a bit vague. But I have to say I still believe those we are talking about have had enough and will seek to achieve a diplomatic solution to Iran through back channels. The possibilities that it could have on the markets are too dire to be allowed to move forward unchecked. I would say most likely something of the order in North Korea but the differences are large enough between the two nations (prior humanitarian and food supports to NK from our government that Iran did not enjoy as one example) that it may be something else. That being said, I see Iran coming out of this with some form of nuclear capibilities (borderline peaceful/military). Which begs the question does the US government allow the Iraqi government to eventually achieve the same standard? Secondly if Iraq is truly a sovereign nation as US officials claim will it really be any of our business?
Personally I think NATO is in Afghanistan more because of Iran than because of Al Qaeda. We could have destroyed Al Qaeda's bases in Afghanistan and then left rather than NATO staying there. I think we stayed there to use Afghanistan as a base for quick raids against Iran over the next 20-50 years if that kind of action becomes necessary.
Mutiny? No, that would make them appear to me martyrs for the glorious cause of Peace. Instead charge 'em with Conduct Unbecoming An Officer. Hold Court Martials reduce 'em in rank and discharge 'em with extream dishonor.
Put a nasty lil stain on their service record to show everyone what worthless cowards they are.
Bust 'em down before booting 'em! You don't get to pick and choose wars! This isn't a buffet! Insubordination is punishable under the UCMJ no matter what rank! This is conduct unbecoming an officer.
Actually, we are talking staff officers here, and their resignations would not be considered desertion. Nazi officers were convicted at Nurembourg for saying they had to follow certain orders. The judges said no, they should have resigned. Of course, the Third Reich would have considered such a resignation a shooting offense, on the spot, I would imagine.
American staff officers who don't care for an operation should resign, we don't want them around anyway.
All that said, the article is complete BS, so none of this matters, other than as something to discuss.
Now field officers is a different story, in that case you would be correct, it would be a court martial offense to attempt to resign in the field upon being given an order.
Of course, it wouldn't be desertion. But insubordination at the very least. I agree that we wouldn't want them around anyway. If they want to put conditions on their service, then demote and discharge. Or refuse their resignation, and send them back to officers school.
Should Iran be "allowed" to have some kind of nuclear capabilities, Saudi Arabia, Qatar (sp?), the United Arab Emmerits, Kuwait, will all want to go nuclear as well. They are all sacred of Iran and the Mullahs.
It really isn't up to just the USA. The BIG BOYS in the nuke club, all think that they should have a world or three about who else has them too. Remember the "noise" about India and Pakistan, when each got nukes?
Are sure that is a good idea? What happens if a democrat wins in 2008?
Who keeps saying that we are going to invade Iran? My bad MSM, GW has never mentioned this but according to Iranians we are at their front gate. This is so stupid.
But there's no need to invade Iran. We can stop its nuclear weapons program and cripple its economy with air strikes and some spec ops and Navy on installations in the Gulf. Why would we invade?
Huh? When you retire, you request retirement. You don't just quit. When you are retired you are subject to recall to active duty in time of war. These nameless Generals need to review the oath they took.
Our troops deserve it. Victory, absolute and unconditional at that, or don't go in at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.