An interesting US View on the Middle East

#1
An interesting article on the Middle East, with an endorsement form another American Air Force General:

Quote:

“This is one of the most profound articles that I have ever read about this Presidency, this era and this so-called war. Everything this man says makes perfect sense.

No matter your politics, you owe it to yourself to read and pass on so we all are informed of what's going on in our world!

Another assessment of where the US stands in relation to the Middle East problems, this one is from the guy who had his finger on the nuclear trigger for three years as head of our defense and response complex buried under Cheyenne Mountain at Colorado Springs.

He was the only person who could initiate a nuclear attack after advising the sitting president of a missile launch by our enemies and our need to respond. No political or civilian type in the US had more knowledge about day to day military actions around the world.

Everyone should find quiet time to read this. As far as I am concerned, it is exactly the direction we should go and the consequences of not doing so are well thought out.”

John R. (Jack) Farrington, Major General, USAF (Retired)


The article is written by Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.

Link:

http://www.go-patriots.com/Jim Cash.htm
 
#2
What are your thoughts on this Trippy.

Personally I viewed it as a crass and ill informed piece of war mongering literature.

It opens poorly by mentioning the 'War in Iraq' - Does America consider that it is in fact still at war with Iraq and therefore all the people in Iraq should be considered suspect and possibly treated as combatants.

'Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the 7th Century' - This is a terrible statement. Firstly there was no 'West' as we know it in the 7th century, America itself was just shy of a millenium away from being discovered. Secondly The nations of Islam at the time did not attack anyone, they were attacked in the form of the crusades that was at the behest of the Pope. Now correct me if i am wrong, but i am sure Saladin and his ilk never entered Europe.

'Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.' - So are all Islamic nations uncivilised? Is the definition of civilisation the persuance of science and technology? Because if that is your definitition based on the American ideals then it is deeply floored when some of these Islamic nations can simply draw oil from the ground and barter it for whatever they wish - money, science, technology or power - why would they need to work hard to achive these things when they have some other fool to provide it for them.

There are many more points in this awful hate fueled article, but they would make for a long winded post on my behalf.

The article reads to me as a statement to go to war with Iran.

It is an affront to all service personal fighting for peace and for those that have given their lives for such a cause. Anyone who agrees with this shite should be ashamed of themselves.
 

Fugly

ADC
DirtyBAT
#3
The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.
The lunatic words of a madman. If this loon had his finger over the button for 3 years, i'm very suprised he didn't push it just to see what would happen.

AQ won't start WW3, loons like this one will.
 
#5
HHHHMMMM...do ya think this retired gentlemen works within the defence industry? Another front opening up would ensure that his pockets are quite nicely prepared for the impending economic dive!

Think dingerr is bang on the money in his assesment. This article is rich in right wing propaganda and very poor in historically supported fact.

And I really doubt that even our American cousins have the combat power to defeat and hold Iran...it is 4 x bigger than Iraq geographically and population wise.
 
#6
dingerr & others:

dingerrr's quote:

"What are your thoughts on this Trippy."

I keep in mind that these are Air Force Generals, (CRAB's seem to be all alike.) making these statements. I placed the article here to start discussions on the article, as it seems to be doing! ;)

There are a few points in the article that I agree with. One point that I agree completely with is Iran.

Iran sooner or later, we will have to be dealt with either by force of arms, or diplomatic means. I'd prefer the latter; however, given the radical Muslims, running the show there, I doubt that diplomacy will work.

I doubt that we can gain anything with diplomacy, unless they have a revolution and the moderates take over.

I also agree that we need to find another energy source to do away with our dependency on oil. IMHO I think it can be done!

IMHO, the USA as well as the Western world needs to have a serious project, like we did for the Manhattan Project or the Space race to do this.

I'd love to see all those oil producing Countries trying to figure out what to do with their oil!
 
#7
With the power held within oil, alternative sources are unlikely to be searched for. I suggest that the middle east be left with all its oil for energy and the western world can use nuclear power. This should solve most problems.
 
#8
dingerr said:
With the power held within oil, alternative sources are unlikely to be searched for. I suggest that the middle east be left with all its oil for energy and the western world can use nuclear power. This should solve most problems.

Hmmm... so far nuclear power doesn't seem to work in cars to well. I do see a use for nuclear power in dealing with Iran though, unless they change their ways... quickly! :twisted:
 
#9
Iran's nuclear intentions are the cause of the US, who gave them a nuclear reactor in the 50's. Also with uranium being a natural resource in Iran it is only natural that they would seek nuclear power.
 
#10
dingerr:

Nuclear weapons, not nuclear power is the concern if the US! (As well as my own.)

Are you trying to tell me you would want President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to be in control of Nuclear weapons? I don't like this idea at all. He's a real 'nut case.'

I'd rather see Iran bombed back to the stone age, than see a State run by Muslim extreamists with nuclear weapons. (To include Pakistan.)
 
#11
I never expressed an opinion in my last post, just pointed out a few facts.

Interesting that you should mention Pakistan, as they already have nuclear weapons, yet no Radiological/Nuclear incidents to speak of.
 
#12
dingerr said:
I never expressed an opinion in my last post, just pointed out a few facts.

Interesting that you should mention Pakistan, as they already have nuclear weapons, yet no Radiological/Nuclear incidents to speak of.
Yeah, the reason for my mention of Pakistan was the political unrest there. As long as there is a Pro Western leader there like President Pervez Musharraf I'm not to worried about the weapons ; however, if the Muslim extremist, should take control of the country I would be worried. Wouldn't you? :roll:
 
#13
This guy sounds like he has hit the nail on the head and he is open about the reasons behind Iraq, and the reasons for dealing with Iran it has always been them or us.
 
#14
Trip_Wire said:
dingerr:

Nuclear weapons, not nuclear power is the concern if the US! (As well as my own.)

Are you trying to tell me you would want President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to be in control of Nuclear weapons? I don't like this idea at all. He's a real 'nut case.'

I'd rather see Iran bombed back to the stone age, than see a State run by Muslim extreamists with nuclear weapons. (To include Pakistan.)
Psst. They don't have a weapons program. I'm sure you must have seen it mentioned on the news. Continuing to threaten them with war (including the prospect of a nuclear first strike) is just going to make them defensive and more prone to lash out and/or make life generally difficult for the US.

Did it not occur to you and your ilk that the reason they're supporting the insurgency in Iraq might be that the longer and more deeply they can tie the US down in that shitehole, the less likely the US is to attack Iran?

For the last 28 years it has been the declared US policy to contain, if not overthrow the Iranian regime. The US currently throwing hundreds of millions of dollars every year at dissident groups, insurrectionists, tv and radio propagandists, journalists, bloggers etc. that have the express aim of overthrowing the Iranian government. Take a moment to think about how that would go down if someone tried to foment revolution in your country.

I'm not saying that life in Iran is all sweetness and light and that Ahmadinejad is not a dangerous person. I'm saying that things could be made an awful lot worse quite easily and all this bellicose nonsense is just going to cement that hairy little midget's grip on power. Think about it- when the West was engaging with Iran in the 1990s, the mullahs had no choice to slacken their grip on power a bit and let moderates run the show for a while. Monkey-boy and the neo-con hoards rock up and soon after, the Iranians are scared shitless and getting up to all kinds of nonsense because whatthe militants are saying all of a sudden has a lot more credence.
 
#16
Trip_Wire said:
An interesting article on the Middle East, with an endorsement form another American Air Force General:

Quote:

“This is one of the most profound articles that I have ever read about this Presidency, this era and this so-called war. Everything this man says makes perfect sense.

No matter your politics, you owe it to yourself to read and pass on so we all are informed of what's going on in our world!

Another assessment of where the US stands in relation to the Middle East problems, this one is from the guy who had his finger on the nuclear trigger for three years as head of our defense and response complex buried under Cheyenne Mountain at Colorado Springs.
He was the only person who could initiate a nuclear attack after advising the sitting president of a missile launch by our enemies and our need to respond. No political or civilian type in the US had more knowledge about day to day military actions around the world.

Everyone should find quiet time to read this. As far as I am concerned, it is exactly the direction we should go and the consequences of not doing so are well thought out.”

John R. (Jack) Farrington, Major General, USAF (Retired)


The article is written by Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.

Link:

http://www.go-patriots.com/Jim Cash.htm
Another made up story from the US we all know that Brig J O'Neil of SG1 is in charge of the under ground complex which houses one of the biggest spinning rings in the world
 
#17
I too believe this guy is ill informed and ignorant. But he's a miltary man, not a diplomat. Although I have to respond to some of the replies here that downplay the threat from Iran. As usual, this is a classic case of Americans overreacting and Brits underreacting. Iran is controlled by fundamentalist Muslim fanatics, and while they may want Nuclear power for magnanimous purposes, they still have the intention to do what they say they will. Namely, to "wipe Israel off the map". They do not think rationally, and no doubt acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities is one of their goals.

As for the US helping out Iran with their program in the 50's, that was a different time. Islamic fanatics weren't as prevalent back then, nor as global. We supported the Soviet Union to fight Germany and China to fight Japan. Now, the situation is reversed. So that can not really be used against US politics.

He is also wrong about the US' reliance on Middle Eastern oil. The US, contrary to popular opinion, gets the vast majority of it's oil from South America and the United States itself (as well as other places). The percentage of US oil that comes from the Middle East is actually quite small. What the US does rely on is the European (as a whole) and Japanese economies, who are very dependant on middle eastern oil. In today's economically interdependant world, the US economy needs the European and Japanese economies to function so the US economy can function. Indeed, the US could suck Iraq dry and it would only amount to 2% of it's annual oil dependancy. But, if a stable, pro western secular democracy is established, than it may bring the Middle East out of the dark age, and oil would flow more freely to Europe and Japan, and ultimately, everyone would be better off financially and the Iraqis would get a democracy out of the whole thing. Not to mention, the world would be a lot safer. No rhiteous crusades against terrorism are involved, no oil conspiracies, just politics and simple economics. Of course, since we can't stop hatreds that have been going on before even most European countries were formed in a mere 5 years, we think it cannot be done. So far the only thing this war has done is cause a stir at home. Self rhiteous people from the left and right are more interested in pointing fingers and assigning blame than getting the job done.
 
#18
gimme-shelter said:
I too believe this guy is ill informed and ignorant. But he's a miltary man, not a diplomat. Although I have to respond to some of the replies here that downplay the threat from Iran. As usual, this is a classic case of Americans overreacting and Brits underreacting. Iran is controlled by fundamentalist Muslim fanatics, and while they may want Nuclear power for magnanimous purposes, they still have the intention to do what they say they will. Namely, to "wipe Israel off the map". They do not think rationally, and no doubt acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities is one of their goals.

As for the US helping out Iran with their program in the 50's, that was a different time. Islamic fanatics weren't as prevalent back then, nor as global. We supported the Soviet Union to fight Germany and China to fight Japan. Now, the situation is reversed. So that can not really be used against US politics.

He is also wrong about the US' reliance on Middle Eastern oil. The US, contrary to popular opinion, gets the vast majority of it's oil from South America and the United States itself (as well as other places). The percentage of US oil that comes from the Middle East is actually quite small. What the US does rely on is the European (as a whole) and Japanese economies, who are very dependant on middle eastern oil. In today's economically interdependant world, the US economy needs the European and Japanese economies to function so the US economy can function. Indeed, the US could suck Iraq dry and it would only amount to 2% of it's annual oil dependancy. But, if a stable, pro western secular democracy is established, than it may bring the Middle East out of the dark age, and oil would flow more freely to Europe and Japan, and ultimately, everyone would be better off financially and the Iraqis would get a democracy out of the whole thing. Not to mention, the world would be a lot safer. No rhiteous crusades against terrorism are involved, no oil conspiracies, just politics and simple economics. Of course, since we can't stop hatreds that have been going on before even most European countries were formed in a mere 5 years, we think it cannot be done. So far the only thing this war has done is cause a stir at home. Self rhiteous people from the left and right are more interested in pointing fingers and assigning blame than getting the job done.
Regarding the "wipe Israel off the map" comment, there's a wealth of evidence to suggest that he was misquoted by translators:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html

Semantics matter, and that's the vital importance of INTERPRETERS rather than translators.

As regards rationality. I think the Iranian govt is acting as rationally as any humans can. So far they've done a pretty bang up job in terms of securing what they believe their interests to be given the tools they have at their disposal, the bureaucratic and political structural obstacles and system opposition they face. A large part of that is simply hanging on to power, and if we're honest, they need the United States breathing down their neck. They'd have bugger-all domestic support without it. As it is, they can point to a big-bad threat "out there" and say what they're doing is for national security purposes and, when things go wrong, they can blame the foreigners. (If the Septics possessed any sense of irony I think they'd recognise the parallells.)

Edit: G_S. Can I ask why exactly you presume that their intention is to develop a nuclear weapon when they have repeatedly stated that they do not want to? The IAEA has found no evidence and neither has the US intelligence community? I'm just curious because so many people are insisting at they are when there is no credible evidence that suggests that is the case. I would argue that, in light of these facts, that there is very considerable doubt.
 
#19
No offense, but the Guardian is trash. I'd sooner read from the Pravda (what's the world coming to). Wether it was misquoted or not, Iran is still controlled by a council of Muslim Fanatics and has been supporting terrorism for over 30 years against Israel and the US (who they call "The Great Satan", and I don't think they misquoted that one). As for evidence that they are making Nuclear weapons, how could there be such evidence? The only thing that could determine that is HUMINT, and not just any HUMINT, but from people who are actually working on a bomb. Hell, if the Germans and Japanese had spies in high ranking positions in the US military they would still not be able to find out any evidence of the Manhattan Project. Is it unreasonable to suggest that a country that is led by religious fanatics (unreasonable in itself) with a strong dislike for Israel and the West, who have probably supported more terrorist attacks than any single other state, would acquire a Nuclear weapon and wouldn't have any qualms about selling it to even crazier religious fanatics who would walk right into Tel Aviv with it? The issue here is that an Islamic extremist government may very well be trying to acquire a Nuclear weapon. Maybe they plan on acquiring Nuclear energy first so they can use it to better their lives, and maybe the threat isn't imminent, but somewhere along the line, they are going to want a nuke.
 
#20
I think it is about time the US climbed down from the high moral ground and learn that after the Iraq lies the world will not just follow them blindly on which ever crusade they feel we should. If they had said Saddam is a nut job and he is destabilising the region the world would now listen to them. We have had North Korea, Libya and Syria in the past all of which the US turns against as and when they need someone to flex their muscles against. Yes we have had our problems with Iran but we are now in the "little boy who cried wolf" situation and we will need more than I said, he said and they said to talk us into embarking on another farce.

I know US politics is not concerned with world opinion but they are putting pressure on the "special relationship" asking the UK to blindly follow them around the world hoping that we will bring some of our friends with US. The US is not only alienating Middle East countries but most of Europe as well, A period of splendid isolation may not be a bad thing for the world as a whole.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top