To continue with the analysis of the Christian right; we have the issue of Bush sending along patriot missiles and a Navy Commander of operations along with his 20000 new troops.

Now, last time I checked the Al-qaeda navy wasn't particularly powerful.  Nor is said Navy commander's experience with aerial warfare particularly sensible to explain his posting, if the goal was to fight insurgents. And particularly, bringing in Patriot missiles just doesn't sound logical for street fighting.

But all of these things sound really rational if Bush's real goal is to make a pre-emptive invasion of Iran, one that would basically force the American people to have to fight yet another war they don't want.  He knows that if he orders a single attack, after that its pretty well a fait accomplit; the american people will have no choice, the republican party, at the very least, will back him; and of course, God wants this.

I don't mean in a general sense. I mean, the guy has the deputy national security advisor (Elliot Abrams) meeting up with televangelist John Hagee, a huge evangelical leader who recently wrote a book explaining that a war between the US an Iran is a vital and necessary step to the Christian Apocalypse, the "End Times"; and that this should therefore be encouraged by good christians everywhere to help speed up the return of Jesus. He launched a huge phone-in campaign where his followers would voice their forceful desire that absolutely no peace talks be held with Iran.

To them, this is a huge victory; to Bush, its his sacred mission, and his last chance to fuck over the entire country. He has nothing left to lose, and he can at least go out as the great hero of christian evangelicals.

RPGPundit

Just for the record a significant portion of the US armed forces in Afghanistan has been Naval and marine forces... despite the fact that Afghanistan is a landlocked nation with no real major river system to control.  In fact, many of those naval personnel are submariners, doubly worthless.

The sending of a naval commander has nothing to do with ships and possibly little to do with aerial combat. It has everythign to do with the politics and breakdown of the US armed forces, where each branch of the military is a seperate entity. As no one branch wants to be sidelined and rendered irrelevant they must perforce take part in whatever operations that come to hand... no matter how non-sensicle.  Personally, I wonder about that division, though I gather that the split orginally occured to prevent anyone from getting too much military power under their direct control... a la ceasar, one might say.

To try to invade Iran with 20,000 men would be ambitious, to say the least.

I would also disagree that Dubya is looking for a chance to fuck the country. Leaders such as him are not the sort of people who want to do harm to their country. Rather, he is the sort who is convinced he's doing good. That's a far more dangerous person. A malicious man can be convinced to act differently, you can threaten or persuade him about his course of action; but a man convinced he is doing good cannot be swayed.

However, this good-doing is not going to take the form of invading with 20,000 men. It's not in the US interest to invade Iran. Just as Saudi Arabia was more of an enemy than Iraq, but was too hard a target so was left alone, so too with Iran.

Recently a US submarine off the coast of iran at periscope depth was struck by a japanese oil tanker.

Now, WTF do you think a US sub was doing at that depth off the coast of iran?

DUHbya is going to drag us into a war with iran too, the goddam SOB. As much as I hate iran and would like to see it, as all radical islamic countries, destroyed, he's got our military too stretched out to do it with anything less than nuclear strikes.

I remember the colossal arrogance of his speech in which he decreed that saddam hussein and his sons must leave iraq or he;d invade it. Now the same colossal arrogance is at work again, having learned nothing from iraq.

DUHbya may get us into a position where we have to use nukes to protect us for the consequences of his actions, and god only knows what the end result will be.

When america elected DUHbya in 2004, it may have sealed it's doom.

When my spell checker gets through with your post Nox, I may think you actually care, despite the fact you can't even take the time to utilize a simple spell check on your labor of love.

Quote from: Serious PaulWhen my spell checker gets through with your post Nox, I may think you actually care, despite the fact you can't even take the time to utilize a simple spell check on your labor of love.

Run this thru your spellchecker: FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!

Quote from: WetbackRun this thru your spellchecker: FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!

It's through, not thru.  And there should be a comma between FUCK YOU and ASSHOLE.

It's beautiful that you try to help, Stumpydave.

I believe the Naval Commander is there to coordinate the two carrier groups.

Normally a carrier group commander is lord and master of whatever area his aircraft can reach. You're basically going to have two carrier group commanders who are even on the depth chart (both likely Rear Admirals).

So my interpretation of events is that the commander will be there to make sure there's no countermanding of orders in a crisis.

Which doesn't mean I disagree with Pundit's basic premise.

Bush was open about wanting to provoke a confontration with Iraq and when that didnt happen, he went ahead and invaded anyway.

The buildup this time is eerily similar, with a military buildup and provocation, hoping the other shoots first so we can claim we're defending ourselves.

Will he go the extra mile and invade anyway a second time?

Not sure. The military is stretched thinner, not just Iraq and Afghanistan but also an increasing involvement in North Africa in defense of Ethiopa/against Somalia and I believe there are still special operations forces tied up in Putin's grand crusade against the Chechyn seperatists. We also still have forces committed to the Philippine anti-terrorist campaigns.

This is why a number of military analysts are already calling our current situation WWIII. Yes its a different kind of war, lower intensity conflicts to be sure but conflicts all over. Still, there's a lot of disagreement and that discussion perhaps best saved for another time.

Basically, I think Bush would be *thrilled* if Iran gave him an excuse. He might even clutch at a "Gulf of Tonkin" like event. But with a Dem congress I don't think he'll just invade.

So we need to watch closely for that "provocation". Though if Bush orders the troops to respond immediately to his Gulf of Tonkin, then we're screwed.

This is why I think some congressional proposals working their way through (I think it's a Biden bill) that *any* attack on Iran requires Congressional approval is key.

Quote from: RPGPunditElliot Abrams

Elliott Abrams. Thanks.

Quote from: JimBobOzTo try to invade Iran with 20,000 men would be ambitious, to say the least.

He doesn't need to invade, he just needs to start something big enough to have an excuse to then immediately require a much larger troop buildup and to give up all talk of a pull out from the region.

QuoteI would also disagree that Dubya is looking for a chance to fuck the country. Leaders such as him are not the sort of people who want to do harm to their country. Rather, he is the sort who is convinced he's doing good. That's a far more dangerous person. A malicious man can be convinced to act differently, you can threaten or persuade him about his course of action; but a man convinced he is doing good cannot be swayed.

Well, I think for Bush "Jesus" trumps "America and he wants to bring about the apocalypse.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, I think for Bush "Jesus" trumps "America and he wants to bring about the apocalypse.

RPGPundit

Right, Bush is going to be vindicated by history!

He's Harry Truman remember?

Harry Truman wouldn't even drink at the same BAR as that rich egomaniac.

the sooner someone caps that asshole (and cheney, can't have him in charge) the better.  congress can try to limit his damage, but he'll act unilaterally anyway.

Quote from: beeberthe sooner someone caps that asshole (and cheney, can't have him in charge) the better.  congress can try to limit his damage, but he'll act unilaterally anyway.

While I may understand your sentiment, I think your statement may be illegal under US law and could result in the SS coming down on you, so you might want to alter it.

I'm NOT going to turn you in for it, even if you were someone like jimboboz who had said something that made me want to bust your mouth, I'm just letting you know the danger you may be in and that it could have an effect on the board as a whole, I'm not threatening you or anything.

"Capping" is one of those English public school rituals, isn't it? I'm sure that's all Beeber meant. A bit lenient, IMO. :spank: