Got to admit, when military types speak out and say political things (often dangerous, war-mongering things) we don’t agree with, we shriek and holler about the need for the military to be subservient to civilian control and call for the heads of the speakers.  When someone like Fallon says something sensible that we agree with, he’s a great guy and should keep it up.  Doesn’t make the warmongers right or Fallon wrong, but it is a phenomenon, you’ll agree.

why when a person is already a member and logged in do you make them fill out this crap again but it is not on other pages.Is it more of the government surveillance onto the little people

Writer on the storm,

I stand corrected. Disingenuous was the wrong word. But, I didn’t necessarily mean that you were ‘wrong’ either. Rather, we are apparently hearing different language and different debate. In my circles of conversation, “boots on the ground” has never been suggested, since we obviously don’t HAVE any boots to PUT on the ground.

So, in these parts, we’ve only ever considered airstrikes, since that seems to have been the plan for quite some time now. (at least 2 years). Still, I guess I was saying the same thing you were in that regard. The outcome will be the same.

Winghunter,

Saber-rattling is saber-rattling, and NOT diplomacy, regardless of who one might be dealing with. (it’s also not SABRE-rattling unless you’re somehow connected to the travel industry that uses that system/technology for its operations).

And, while I’ve been closely monitoring the events in the middle east, I’ve yet to hear or read anyone calling for the destruction of the U.S., unless you’re referring to the insanity emanating from the White House/Executive offices, and even that ‘call for destruction’ hasn’t been ‘worded’ as such. (even though that IS of course what we’ve been watching for the past 7 years now.)

As for growing up fast, would that be the same as needing to ‘sleep fast’? As in, there isn’t much time? You could have a point.

Meantime, maybe you could learn Persian/Farsi, so that you’ll understand those who speak it, for whenever you choose to quote them, or otherwise put words in their mouths. Like I said, there’s been no call for the destruction of our nation. Dick Bush doesn’t speak any language, so we have only their actions to determine that they have in fact determined to destroy us, and their getting there fast.

#113971 by WriterOnTheStorm on 11/16 at 9:54 am)
#113885 by cyrena
With respect, I don’t think you meant “disingenuous”. You meant to say I was wrong. Nevertheless, your assessment reads too much into the debate. The public discussion, from the pundits to the generals, has been about boots on the ground. The language has been expressly about war, not about sorties and smart bombs.
WOTS,
I stand corrected. You’re right. Disingenuous was the wrong word. But, it might be inaccurate to even say that you were ‘wrong’ because we’ve obviously been hearing different language and/or engaging in different debates.
So, you’ve been hearing boots on the ground and war type language, whereas in my own neck of the woods, that language has never actually been entertained. All we’ve ever acknowledged around here is airstrikes. (the reason for all of those aircraft carriers hanging around the Persian Gulf for at least 18 months now) NOT boots on the ground, for the obvious reasons…we don’t HAVE any boots to put on the ground.

So, airstrikes is all we’ve much talked about around here, and the war talk only results from that, since retaliation is a given. We strike, or Israel strikes, and WWIII gets into full swing.

IS THE V.P. HAS GONE MAD ?
--------------------------

Despite of popular belief not only I disagree but also all the indications are that he is at the top of his Performance and is the DECIDER.

The V.P is the person whom the ZIONISTS has worked on and nourished him for decades, he is just doing his job SINCE he signed-on.

The dictatorial regime in Washington, operating in an echo chamber, the all too corrupt legisletive mechanism and the state of the nation, as it is in now, are only the SYMPTOMS.

THE CAUSE IS THE ZIONISTS WITH THEIR HIGHLY ORGANIZED NETWORKS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

THE CANCEROUS ENEMY WITHIN MUST BE STOPPED.

AND UNTIL THEN THERE WOULD BE MANY MORE REGIMES LIKE THE SAID ONE BEFORE ONLY WITH DIFFERENT NAMES AND COLORS.

Thousands of AMERICANS, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS, MANY THOUSANDS OF AFGHANS HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES SO FAR INCLUDING THE ON GOING GENOCIDE IN PALASTINE.

And NEXT. WITH ALL THE OPTIONS ON/UNDER THE TABLE?

As we all well aware once the CAUSE gets removed the SYMPTOMS DISAPPEARS.

#113885 by cyrena

With respect, I don’t think you meant “disingenuous”. You meant to say I was wrong. Nevertheless, your assessment reads too much into the debate. The public discussion, from the pundits to the generals, has been about boots on the ground. The language has been expressly about war, not about sorties and smart bombs.

No official is going to state that air strikes are off the table. Such a move would solve nothing, and cripple any potential diplomatic efforts.

The strategy therefor, has been to throw out the red herring of war, so that eventual air strikes will appear as a measured and considered compromise. Such air strikes will be carefully timed for maximum effect on the presidential election, naturally.

RE #113902 by Winghunter.
He wrote: ‘....If you have no idea who our self-declared enemy actually is, how the heck do you mindnumbingly offer what will persuade them to stop their nuclear ambitions!?’

By ‘our self-declared enemy’, do you mean that Iran has declared itself enemy of the U.S.? On this point, we should note that Iran helped us with our initial efforts against terrorism, and subsequently put a ‘let’s cooperate’ offer on the table, which Bush brushed off.

Iran is no less a democracy than us. Granted that is not saying much, but, in the recent past, Iranians have voted for a moderate government multiple times. It is not brilliance to conclude that the more we threaten Iran with force, the more we empower the Mad Mullahs, which may well be the neo-cons’ point.

Were we a more perfect democracy, we would be using the five or so years that UN inspectors say we have before Iran arms itself, to work on a deal no one can refuse, namely, a nuclear-free Middle East guaranteed by us.

THIS IS HOW IT WORKS FOR THE GLOBAL ELITE, FIRST CONTROL THE WORLDS MONEY WITCH THEY DO, NEXT CONTROL THE WORLDS OIL SUPPLY, AND NEXT ALL OF HUMANITY AND POPULATION CONTROL. AND THIS HAPPENING AS WE SPEAK. JUST LOOK AT OUR GOVERNMENT WHO IN CONTROL, THE CANDIDATES WHO IS IN CONTROL, OUR OPEN BORDERS WHO IS IN CONTROL, DO YOUR HOME WORK ON CFR, FREEMASONRY, TC, AND WE CAN TALK IT TO DEATH, BUT THAT WONT CHANGE A THING, THEIR ORGANIZED AND WE NOT, THE HAVE A PLAN AND WE DON’T, THEY HAVE THE MONEY AND WE DON’T, THEY HAVE THE POWER AND WE DON’T, ALL WE HAVE HOT AIR. BY BY MIS AMERICAN PIE.

most of the comments here are pertinent and useful, but pay particular attention to Cyrena…

The USA will eventually HAVE to bomb Iran, no not for Israel, and not for being part of any “axis of evil,” but for standing in the way of our invasion of more oil rich arab countries like the Emirates, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

It isn’t a question of retaliation by Iran though: it is because Iran will not stand by while we invade the Emirates or Saudi Arabia; they will jump into that operation with both feet and all their air force and submarine force, and be a nuisance to our mideast oil pilfering.

You won’t hear that from Conason, who it seems can’t talk about oil, in the sense meant by Greenscum, but the Cheney mouth is paving the way for more invasions of arab oil countries AND the necessary quelling of any attempt at assistance for those victims by the Iranians.

And we are not really warmongers so much as we are oil pirates; if the mideast would just lie back and enjoy our raping them and controlling all their oil, we wouldn’t have to hurt anyone. Look at the benefits for Iraqis if they shut up and sit down: we will give them 5% of their oil; what could be fairer?

#113800 by WriterOnTheStorm
• A red herring if there was one since war, armed invasion, was never on the table. The question is and remains, will Iran be subject to air strikes. Some say this will be left to Israel but even this is so, the repercussions will be the same.
WOTS…This seems a bit disingenuous, since I don’t think anyone has been talking about an ‘armed invasion’ such as the thugs perpetrated against Iraq. At least not anybody paying attention to the threats against Iran.
So, the question has ALWAYS been about air strikes, and who would do them. Israel, US, or both. And, the outcome, (regardless of who does it) has ALWAYS been a given as well. It will result in war, because Iran will retaliate. Another certainty.  So, no red herring here. (at least not for anybody paying attention, and making the logical connections of dots.) Somebod(ies) perpetrate air attacks on Iran. Iran retaliates against the perpetrators with the help of Russia. Voila, WWIII with nukes.
And, that’s been the conversation for at least 3 years now, although every once in a while, somebody (like Joe here) will mention Condi and diplomacy. But, Condi only says that stuff from time to time. Like, for every 10 threats or saber rattles against Iran, she’ll utter some BS about diplomacy. (or at least a pundit will give her credit for that, even though I’ve never actually heard her say anything of the sort myself, or seen anything like those words actually attributed to her). And, then, it starts all over again.
So, if it’s just been a 3 or 4 year fight between Condi and the Dick, it’s reasonable to accept the general outcome. The Dick always gets around her, no matter what. Dick had considered having Israel do the strikes well over a year ago, and then Israel got a PMS attack, and decided to hit Lebanon –again- instead. But, it’s not like this hasn’t ALWAYS been part of the plan. It’s just delayed (at least by the Dicks agenda) for various and sundry reasons. MAYBE, because the military hasn’t been so anxious to follow these orders.
So, while it may be true that military personnel have never been known to disobey an order, (and I would disagree, but it’s not important to this) there’s a first time for everything, and it may be the only hope.
Douglas:
• #113707 by Douglas Chalmers on 11/15 at 5:22 am
(1192 comments total)
How abou pulling your finger out (of the dyke!) Truthdig and providing a link to the story instead of being too lazy to do your job - three days late!!!  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38dd00ca-90a6-11dc-a6f2-0000 779fd2ac.html
It’s really not so late. The same information, (or basically the same) is contained in Chris Hedges piece, with the appropriate links, and that’s been posted here since the 12th. So if anything, Joe’s piece is what might be considered ‘late’ and I would suspect that’s just because it seems that this is the standard day/time when TD generally publishes his stuff.
A helpful update/correction is actually provided by Tim Kelly at #113738. He writes:
• The article is incorrect.  The Enterprise is being replaced by the Harry S. Truman.  At approximately the same time the U.S. troop presence in Iraq will reach 175,000, there will be at least two aircraft attack carrier groups in the Persian Gulf area, with two others not far away.
http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

So, it would appear that we’re still pretty dependent on the military commanders/generals to disregard Cheney’s orders. I don’t know if there’s anything we can do to stop Israel from hitting them though.

So, now that we’ve figured that out, do you know of at least 3 places in the US Constitution, (original version) that set up the legal precedent for Slavery? See if you can find it faster than I can. I have an exam coming up real soon. Like, in less than 12 hours.

I don’t think Cheney’s gonna do anything about Iran before then. (then again, what do I know).

Good for Fallon, we need other to speak out.

There are enough retired generals against Bush’s current course of diplomacy to start a new lobby in Washington.

As I last recalled my chain of command which every soldier learns in boot camp, the Vice President is no where to be found.  I didn’t know there was a vice commander in chief.

Maybe Cheney has added something new, it wouldn’t be the first time.

douglas chalmers

do you ever look at “working for change”? joe conason is one of their regular bloggers. this piece was on the new york observer on the 13th,and WFC posted it yesterday. WFC is now credomobile.com

Baring mad draft-dodger cheney is NOT in the military chain of command and should be told forcefully by the JCS to SHUT THE F=== UP!

A red herring if there was one since war, armed invasion, was never on the table. The question is and remains, will Iran be subject to air strikes. Some say this will be left to Israel but even this is so, the repercussions will be the same. Everyone knows where those bunker busters come from, and whose approval must be obtained before they drop.

At that point, it will be their IED’s versus our collateral damage. It’s a brave new world.

Dick Chaney is set upon on all sides, and he is losing his mind. As Greg Palast relates in his latest book ´Armed Madhouse´, Dick at times represents diametrically opposite forces simultaneously: The Big Oil companies want Iraq to keep strong central control over its oil, and Israel wants to fragment and weaken the country.

Now, its easy to see why Dick, who is a longtime devotee of Texas oil interests, would want what Big Oil wants, which is to share profits with one government in each oil producing country. But who is pulling him the other way, into splintering Iraq and therefore splintering control over Iraqi oil?

Perhaps one can ask his wife. Lynn Chaney is a key member of the Heritage Foundation, that bastion of AIPAC interests we politely call neoconservatism in order to avoid touching that third rail. Pity poor Dick: his mind is split wide open. Pity us: we must live with him for a while longer.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - “Israel is quietly preparing for the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran despite public pledges it would deny its arch-foe the means to pose a threat...... Top aides to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert are drafting proposals on how Israel, whose security strategy is widely assumed to hinge on having the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal, might deal with losing this monopoly, they said....... Israel is also building up a fleet of German-made submarines which are believed to carry nuclear missiles....” http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1536181420 071115?sp=true

I’m wondering how many military people are quesy about how this administration is decimating both the military and the constitution, and how many might be considering the necessity of taking action against this administration in the event of an attempted Cheney/Bush coup. Given the recent executive order regarding suspension of the constitution in the event of a national emergency, I don’t think such a coup attempt by this administration is all that unlikely, especially if the Republicans can’t fix this next presidential election as they did the last two. Wouldn’t that be an interesting turn of events if it took our military to restore the constitution?

Maybe Adm Fallon’s position will help set the course towards a Cheney Impeachment.  Get some spine Nancy and Harry and help stop this monster instead of helping him.  It will be interesting to see if Bush is even listening to the Admiral, or anyone else who isn’t playing his tune.  I just wonder how far our Military will let him go without a Congressional Declaration of War.  This could be the real test of our Democracy....

The pattern is that they get rid of generals or admirals who are in the way. There’s nothing to stop them from doing that again in this instance. They can always find an Admiral Betray-us to replace Fallon,

Admiral Fallon must know that Cheney has gotten his way with “a challenged” president before, manipulating Bush thru the media and thru fatherly pressure into doing things Bush’s vacuous mind couldn’t encompass. Perhaps Cheney feels that the same jingoistic fervor just after 9/11 will get him an attack on Iran. Certainly the corporate media seems to be trying to help.

As ill-advised as an attack on Iran is, many of us fear that Bush, who has proven not too sharp identifying consequences of his actions, might succumb to the dark one’s will.

CNN broadcasted this briefing yesterday and last week CNN also gave a news accounting on a new Blockbuster bomb made to specifically be used on Iran’s Nuclear facility.
Even the no news networks carried pieces of these stories.But than looking at the news and not sit-coms is necessary.
My personal belief is that Israel will be the one to do the bombing and Big Brother USA will intervene if consequences arise.

How abou pulling your finger out (of the dyke!) Truthdig and providing a link to the story instead of being too lazy to do your job - three days late!!!  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38dd00ca-90a6-11dc-a6f2-0000 779fd2ac.html