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:
There will be no invasion of Iran, mark my words.
On top of that, God hasn't told "Dubya" to do it, either.
Pundit, sometimes you're a complete nut, you know that? Either that, or you don't understand American religion. Bush is a METHODIST - they're about the same thing as Athiests, except they have to get up on Sunday morning.
Now if Bush were a Baptist, maybe.
Settle down and go back to bitching about how we've raped South America.
America won't have to invade. They'll be in economic trouble long before. The Saudi's are making good on their threat. Seen the price of oil lately? Iran can't afford to have oil at $40 a barrel, and the Saudi's can. They'll flood the market and put the financial squeeze on Iran. They've stated it.
Iran's in a bit of a box right now. I think the 20,000 troops are not specifically for Iran any more than the the first 100,000 - 150,000 were. They're for Iran, but in a proxy war for the Middle East being fought in Iraq the for the sake of ensuring free flowing inexpensive oil.
Now unless Christians are the only ones using oil, I think this has more to do with black gold than Jesus.
Quote from: James J SkachNow unless Christians are the only ones using oil, I think this has more to do with black gold than Jesus.
Always has been. The religion angle's just a bone tossed to Bush's supporters.
Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckI 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).
Yes, well, this sort of begs the question of what the fuck those carrier groups are doing there in the first place; as in, why has there been a sudden build-up of naval forces in the gulf; when these forces would in no way add to the capacity to stabilize Iraq, but would be ideal for a conflict with Iran.
QuoteThis 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.
It could be seen that way in the sense that the collective weight of all these conflicts could end up having a similarly world-changing consequence; just like WWI wiped out the continental European powers and set the stage for Hitler, WWII wiped out the British Empire and set the stage for the rise of the US and the USSR; this series of conflicts could end up economically and socially "breaking" the US, and leading to the rise of new global powers who take advantage of the United States' weakened position.
QuoteBasically, 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.
Well, I agree with that, that he's desperately hoping to intimidate Iran into doing something rash out of fear of imminent attack, and giving the excuse he needs to deepen the quagmire further. The Rumsfeld policy, which still stands in the white house even though Rummy himself is gone, is that if you can't fix a conflict as it stands the answer is to enlarge it.
RPGPundit
I think that Bush wants to plaster iran because iran defied and to a large degree humiliated america during the iranian hostage crisis.
Now I admit that carter, as much as I like him as a person, fucked that situation up royally by trying to be mr. nice guy instead of just saying "Look, motherfucker, give us back our people or we start taking out things of yours you don't want taken out, and if you kill our people we turn your cities into parking lots, got it, asshole?!"
But the fact is that iran humiliated america in 79-80 and got away with it, now they think they're little billy badass and have nothing to fear from the great satan. So bush is just jonesing for a chance to take them down one way or another, and I think he'll find an excuse given how hard he's working on one.
From the day he took office he was "A gonna git that thar sahdum hussane" because hussein had openly defied his dad, now he wants to "git" iran for the hostage crisis.
What an asshole.
Quote from: RPGPunditYes, well, this sort of begs the question of what the fuck those carrier groups are doing there in the first place; as in, why has there been a sudden build-up of naval forces in the gulf; when these forces would in no way add to the capacity to stabilize Iraq, but would be ideal for a conflict with Iran.
Oh I agree totally. There's little need for even a single carrier for Iraq, except as a failsafe in case something goes horribly awry. Basically the tactical reason for the FIRST carrier, except for the early early days of the Iraq conflict(when mining the gulf was a realistic strategy for Iraq) was to maintain absolute sea and air control over the gulf, in case an evacuation by sea was needed.
I mean, we have ground based aircraft for Iraq, which is superior to an aircraft carrier. The purpose for the first group was total control over the gulf, in the air, on the surface and below the surface (the Los Angeles submarines that are part of the carrier group shouldn't be overlooked).
A second carrier is only really required to deal with a substantial air, sea and undersea gulf power. Unfortunately there's only one nation that currently meets that criteria: Iran.
The other thing that's really brazen about this move is to look at where the rest of our carriers are. No, I don't really know, that sort of thing is classified, but as a general rule, I believe there are only two carriers in striking distance of one other area on Earth and that's the South Pacific.
We have one carrier on more or less permanent deployment to ensure the safety of Japan, and a second carrier was sent to the region in the Clinton administration because of the whole North Korea-China-Taiwan nexus of potential trouble. To my knowledge that carrier has never been recalled.
So basically, we just said to the world that we consider the Persian Gulf a threat on the scale of Korea and China combined.
It's dumb, telegraphs our intentions and is an extremely bellicose action. In short, par for the course for this administration.
I mean, this is the administration looking for war guidance from Fred Kagan. Now Kagan's a military historian of some note with a lot of academic credentials to his name.
Dealing with the Napoleonic Wars.
And god, I wish I was making that up. And when he detailed the "surge" plan, a BBC reporter who was present stated that Bush looked relieved and blurted out "you mean we can still win?"
That's exactly how fucked we are.
A funny thing is that they're deploying patriot antimissile batteries around the mideast now, and the fact is the patriots really did nothing useful whatsoever during the original war with iraq, or "bullshit storm" as I call it.
Now maybe they've improved the patriots in the ensuing years, but the fact is at the time of bullshit storm we were told tha patriots were doing great, then later the truth, that anathema to politicians, slowly began to dribble out and eventually we fond that the patriot antimissiles did nothing useful whatsoever.
So now they're deploying them again, oh well, maybe after so many years and so many billiuons of dollars they're raised their effectgiveness from 0.00% to 0.10%, then they'll tell us how much better thay are now....
Quote from: James J SkachAmerica won't have to invade. They'll be in economic trouble long before. The Saudi's are making good on their threat. Seen the price of oil lately? Iran can't afford to have oil at $40 a barrel, and the Saudi's can. They'll flood the market and put the financial squeeze on Iran. They've stated it.
That doesn't match with the recent OPEC production cuts, though. I don't know
which OPEC countries are cutting down production, though, and it could well be that the Saudis are selling more oil outside OPEC channels (they did that before, and they were not the only ones to do so).
Quote from: Dominus NoxWhile 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.
technically, what is against the law is stating that you (the individual) want to or will do such a thing. that's considered a threat. stating that it indirectly/in the 3rd person/etc. is freedom of speech. i've confirmed this with two people who are lawyers.
the whole situation is a tremendous mexican standoff, with two trigger-happy lunatics just waiting to be appropriately provoked. and as far as oil goes, i'm sure OPEC has their hands full keeping production at a stable level overall. the violence in nigeria has been detrimental to their production, and they're in OPEC.
Well, I don't know about y'all, but I took a look at the price of oil.
Just a few months ago, it was in the $70 range. I just cehcked and it was around $52. That price doesn't drop that far for no reason. Supply must be way up, or demand must be way down. Or speculators have decided the supply isn't in as much danger. I think we can all agree that the greatest likelihood is the first, yes?
So where is that supply coming from?
I'll take te Saudi's at their word - in this case cause they are scared shitless of Iran regional hegemony - that they are going to up the supply.
Quote from: RPGPunditYes, well, this sort of begs the question of what the fuck those carrier groups are doing there in the first place; as in, why has there been a sudden build-up of naval forces in the gulf; when these forces would in no way add to the capacity to stabilize Iraq, but would be ideal for a conflict with Iran.
Doesn't the US almost always have a carrier group in the Gulf? I mean, at least since the first conflict in 1991. So I don't think it's that sudden. Why two now? I don't know, crossover? support? threat?
And never mistake the fact that no matter how many "boots on the ground" the US may have in a region, carrier groups are how the US projects power. So even if the US has air bases in Iraq, and boots on the ground in Iraq, the carrier groups are the life-line for those things, and the true projection of power.
That may be more to your point about why the projection of power at all - but that's simple. Remind Iran that the US can do so.
but carrier groups can't stop death squads and random roadside IED's. and as long as we have a strong presence there, those things are going to continue as well.
one reason the oil price has dropped is supply, but it's stockpiled supplies. the last hurricane season and following winter were originally thought to be much harsher than turned out to be. with the "surplus" at home, there price drops out (a bit) from the commodities market.
i was a history major, not economics, so my terminology may be off. but just follow the headlines and you can see what's going on. also http://www.energybulletin.net but that's a bit of a peak oil site, so YMMV
Quote from: beebertechnically, what is against the law is stating that you (the individual) want to or will do such a thing. that's considered a threat. stating that it indirectly/in the 3rd person/etc. is freedom of speech. i've confirmed this with two people who are lawyers.
the whole situation is a tremendous mexican standoff, with two trigger-happy lunatics just waiting to be appropriately provoked. and as far as oil goes, i'm sure OPEC has their hands full keeping production at a stable level overall. the violence in nigeria has been detrimental to their production, and they're in OPEC.
Hmmm, I once heard that it was illegal to even say you WISHED someone would off the prez, I swear I heard that somewhere once, but you may be right. I was just trying to spare someone a raid from the american SS.