An interesting US View on the Middle East

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by Trip_Wire, Jan 10, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

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


    “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.

  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.
  3. Fugly

    Fugly LE DirtyBAT

    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.
  4. Ill-informed, ethnocentric, narrow-minded and having only a superficial grasp of the issues. Frankly: embarrassing and worrying.
  5. 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 is 4 x bigger than Iraq geographically and population wise.
  6. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    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. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    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. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP


    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. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    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. 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.
  15. What a piece of self serving US crap - AGAIN!