Top general warns Iran not to underestimate U.S. military

A top U.S. commander is warning Iran and others against thinking they can exploit the U.S. military because its ground troops are fighting two major missions in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites).


"Why the Iranians would want to move against us in an overt manner that would cause us to use our air or naval power against them would be beyond me," Army Gen. John Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview on the way to his headquarters here from Afghanistan.


Some members of Congress, including Democratic Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan and Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, have expressed concern that there is a shortage of U.S. troops and such a scenario might tempt nations such as Iran and North Korea (news - web sites) to increase terrorist activity or develop weapons of mass destruction.


Abizaid, the top commander for Afghanistan and Iraq, said any nation perceiving a weakness in the U.S. military should think twice.


"We can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else on Earth, and everybody knows it," Abizaid said. "If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United States militarily."

more: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20041129/pl_usatoday/topgeneralwarnsirannottounderestimateusmilitary

:eyes:

What is with all the staged threats?

Do competent leaders threaten nations with military harm?

"Poland has attacked Germany for the last time!"

The model for American foreign policy is Rheinhard Heydrich.

these dummies really do follow through on their threats.

The problem is, everyone has God on their side so deterrence is unlikely.

...fronts, so what is the point of military threats? To obfuscate the fact that there is no need for threats at present. So why make them?

The simple answer is that the American agenda is one of belligerent aggression. The Iranians are making energy deals with the Chinese worth tens of billions of dollars. Huge American oil companies and BP and Shell don't like being cut out of the picture, the real objective is repatriation of nationalized energy resources.

would be doing better in Iraq and Afganistan then we really are.

<snip
"We can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else on Earth, and everybody knows it," Abizaid said. "If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United States militarily."
<snip>

And as for nukes, Barney BadAss needs to be reminded that we're not the only ones who have them. It sounds like the fool's just aching to let the bombs fly.

This is NOT the kind of nutcase we need in the world at this time. Too damn many countries hate this administration. We have no allies to speak of, and I doubt that the British would care to put their asses in line for a nuclear attack just because Tony can't pry his lips off bush*s ass.

Violence is not the answer to everything, although that's not the example that America has chosen to present to the world. Abazaid needs to shut up and figure out a way to get our asses out of the swamps named Afganistan and Iraq.

It didn't work w/9-11.

Before the mighty US military was betrayed by its political masters yet again and is now subject to the uncertain support of an economy showing signs of strain.

The US is like the USSR in 1988. The Bush and his American Century is about to go the way of the thousand year Reich.

The divide between the haves and have nots grows daily. The money is stone like in it's descent.

Historicly when the divide between the rich and the masses reaches a trigger point-and that point can be almost anything that angers the people-things explode. And it's usually the entrenched wealthy that end up on the business end of the guillotine, to mix a few metaphors.

The ones who remembered how much Hell
War is. No one to pass the nightmares down
to the Generation in charge.

to "Macho man" by the The Village People behind secure doors (with $hrubco sometimes).:bounce:

There are plenty of troops, other nations just need to see this war is worth fighting.

Denmark is extending their commitment (which ends in Dec) by 6 months.

Heaven forbid the Ukraine (4th largest contributor) decides to pull its mere 1400 troops.

Rummy figures he's got 2 years before he exhausts the reserves and guard.

And this final piece of war mongering BS from Abizaid:

But Abizaid said large operations are not the only way to win battles. He pointed to the recent battle in Fallujah, where 10,000 troops backed by precision airstrikes launched from U.S. ships provided overwhelming force. The U.S. military needs to be restructured to fight long wars against terrorists and insurgents over the next 20 years, Abizaid said.

"We have to adapt," he said. "We need more linguists, more cultural experts. Human capital is in short supply."

10 days later... :eyes: yeah that Fallujah was really a BIG WIN.

And waning, as is its habit in combat situations.

I'm surprised he left out, "bring 'em on"!

Abizaid is obviously ready to spend all human capital necessary to realize PNAC.

Another world war,...here we come.

Why should they start using them now?

Abizaid is an utter fool, a war criminal, and a traitor to America.

THE POWER OF THE DARK SIDE.

Eh?

VIENNA, Austria - The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency passed a toned-down resolution Monday on policing Iran's commitment to freeze all programs linked to uranium enrichment in an effort to defuse a dispute that had threatened to go to the Security Council.


The vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency board came after a senior Iranian official appeared to cast doubt on his country's latest commitment to a total suspension of nuclear activities capable of producing weapons-grade uranium.


Diplomats from the European Union (news - web sites) and elsewhere said the Iranian commitment — sent by letter to the IAEA in Vienna on Sunday — fulfilled demands that Tehran include centrifuges in its total suspension of uranium-enrichment programs.


But Hossein Mousavian, the chief Iranian delegate to the meeting, suggested otherwise, telling reporters as the meeting was to reconvene: "We (only) said there would no testing.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20041129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran

I was thinking we might be starting to feel a bit exposed there in Iraq.

14,000 DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN IRAQ

Major General Safavi said that the US CASUALTIES in
Iraq exceeded 10,600 DEAD, and according to some figures
it stood at 14,000 dead which accounted for 10 percent of
the American soldiers.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/119840.php

I know, I know, I've just given up on sorting the real numbers out
for now. There is massive lying and bloviating on all sides, as one
would expect when a war is going on.

What is interesting here is that both sides are resorting to overt
threats now, no more Mr. Nice Guy rhetoric. That is dangerous in the
first place, and indicative that something is up in the second place.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=27427&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

If the Palestinians don't have a state, they will remain
stateless. The rump "Palestinian Authority" will not be able
to keep internal order any better in the future than it has
recently. The Israeli army will inevitably keep being drawn
into re-occupying Palestinians.
A temporary and de facto Apartheid state, such as the Likud
Party is now running, is bad enough. But a permanent one
will spell the end of Israel in the long term. No European
country is going to want to continue to cooperate with it
under those circumstances, nor most countries in the
global south. Most Israelis themselves do not want to
keep another people in the slave-like condition of
statelessness, or to interact with them only through
brutal military raids. And, an ever-growing Palestinian
population in Gaza and the West Bank without any nationality
of their own may eventually successfully claim Israeli
identity (opinion polling shows about a third of them are
already open to this possibility).
(In other words Israel cannot survive status quo).

http://www.juancole.com/

http://www.rbcnews.com/free/20041129124411.shtml

The above articles show we are probing for weakness world wide. And our opposition will instantly push back.

But if we attack Iran it will have to be a simultaneous 600
mile wide assault. From NETeheran to Abu Musa Is in
the Straits of Hormuz.

Crude then becomes instantly priceless ($100/bbl&up).
Which means instant/constant Depression.

The clock is ticking.

A similar combination of insulated cluelessness and desperation.
OTOH, the cluelessness seems less universal than in those days, which
gives me hope. My general impression is that the other great powers
are willing to wait it out while we destroy ourselves in Iraq. If we
are dumb enough to add Iran to the mix, it isn't going to improve our
military situation, eh? That ought to be obvious, and yet one can
find all sorts of people that will claim it would be a piece of cake,
or that will invoke the nuclear "solution" as this dimwit does here,
like it was some sort of magic, like when Arnold stands up through the
floorboards with two giant machineguns in his hands and blows away all
the evildoers.

Anchoring the North Caucasus:
The symbol of Western Ukraine


on the Southern end:
1260-62 Regent Dowager Princess Turhan Hatun of Banu-Salgar (Iran)


Zenith of the Mamelukes
The secret of the Mameluke success was that it was not
a hereditary dynasty. Nor could it be, really. According to
Islamic law, slaves became free men when they converted
to Islam, and the children of slaves could not inherit slave
status. The Mameluke leaders imported and hand-trained
their successors from Russia--usually Kipchaks or
Circassians. Sons of Mamelukes were encouraged to
pursue military careers, and enjoyed a higher social
standing than native Egyptians, but they spoke Arabic rather
than Turkish as a first language and were Moslems from
birth; consequently, they were not expected to be as capable
or zealous as the newly civilized/converted. A few times
a sultan's son managed to succeed his father, but he only
held the throne until another Mameluke built up enough
support to seize it for himself. The real principle of
legitimacy was force, and a sultan could only expect to rule if
he possessed more military force than his rivals. The
average reign lasted only five years, and at one point (1412)
the situation became so chaotic that an Abbasid caliph
was briefly installed as sultan.(I think I like these
guys)

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/neareast/ne12.html#Mameluke3

Did you know that we use a minimum of 360,000 barrels of oil
a day just to run the war machine in Iraq?

,... are being reported, do you think that they'd get really angry and do anything?

I wonder.

I wonder how come no one ever talks about the volunteer aspect of the army. It is volunteer to get in but then illegal to disobey orders. Now I see why once in you have to obey orders because the army would not function otherwise, but still I would not consider it purely volunteer, simply volunteer to get in.

I think they should make it so if congress has not declared war and they are fighting one that guys who want to "put in their two weeks notice" can do so. I don' think it is legal or fair to make people fight when war has not been declared, which can only be done by congress.

I conscioulsy never went into the armed services because of crazy scenarios exactly like what is happening now. Any old redneck can be president and have people fighting all over the place and congress has not declared war. If they went according the constitution or at least gave me a way out if I thought the sitation was an immoral one or against my religious beliefs as an acceptible operation I could opt out. Without that I would never go in and I think most people who do are pretty crazy to do so but it is there choice. Hopefully they just think about what might happen.

A soldier's duty is to disobey illegal orders - such as this entire occupation.

That puts them in a very uncomfortable position, and it enrages me that this government has once again committed America's sons and daughters to an illegal action.

Legitimate legal authority with proper jurisdiction and control has declared this war illegal. Until that happens, the soldiers must obey their superiors.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=562237

Since we're part of the UN, and all treaties are the highest law of the land in the United States, you are incorrect (which is understandable, given the amount of insanity going on in the news these days).

Also, soldiers are not required to wait around for a legal body to declare something illegal to avoid committing war crimes. They are duty-bound to not commit such actions as those that went on at Abu Ghraib, legal declaration or no.

was granted the authority to declare anything illegal, when? It may be his opinion, but he doesn't have the authority nor jurisdiction to declare anything illegal on his own.

Do you believe the war on Iraq and subsequent occupation to be an illegal act of war?

but not illegal.

NT!

There really isn't any way to say whether it was legal or not. like many laws, it depends on interpretation. The security council resolution, I believe 1441, allowed for action if Iraq was not in compliance. It wasn't completely in compliance, but there is some debate over whther it was in compliance enough. But that isn't even the legal debate, the legal debate was, was the resolution automatically enforcing, or was another resolution needed. We said it was automatic, other countries, mainly France, said another resolution was needed. We WERE going to put forward another resolution, but that would not have passed-so we pulled it, and went in under the automatically-enforcing argument. Since the orginal resolution didn't specify either way, it was a matter of one country's word against others. Leaving moral, rational, political arguments all aside, legally speaking, it was pretty much up for grabs.

Please define 'morality'.

I'd like to know, because I do not know what it means.

in order to convince us that there's some build-up to the planned attack.

Theater.

"Look at us - we're strong, REALLY... No, I mean it - we ARE. Don't you bad people think you can beat us, no way, no how. Remember we are the only sooper power"

uh, yeah.... sounds like a desperate statement to me... (decoded - I think he's really saying "Please, dear gawd DON'T let anyone else decide to attack now, because we are up to our asses in alligators already"

U.S Soldiers Killed..............74

Humvees Destroy/Disabl 18
Bradley Figh Veh 9
Abrams Tanks 2
APCs 1
Trucks/tankers 5
Chinook Helicopter 1

Iraqi Resistance shoots down Chinook helicopter
near al-Fallujah at dawn Sunday.

Iraqi Resistance forces shot down a large US
Chinook helicopter north of ‘Amiriyat al-Fallujah at dawn
on Sunday. The Mafkarat al-Islam correspondent in the
area reported that Resistance forces shot it down with a
BKC machine gun. The Chinook crashed in an area where
US troops were concentrated, and therefore it was difficult
to ascertain the extent of casualties aboard the stricken
craft.

should be enough to show the soldiers who are doing the dirty work what these military brass and Rumsfeld think of them - expendable. Cheney/Bush and their oil buddies are using soldiers for their bank accounts and laughing all the way. And many of the soldiers are stupid enough to do their bidding.

Other people's lives, 'spent' to enrich the ownership class. Feudalism. Dickensian England. Commercial Imperialism. Not just the privatization of the means of production (capitalism) but the privatization of every abuse of power seen in the last 2,500 years.

< "We can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else on Earth, and everybody knows it," Abizaid said. "If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United States militarily.">

doing the illegal occupation thingy. Everyone except your average TV watching ameriKan. Abizaid is in deep shit denial if he actually believes what he is saying. My guess is he is reading a script from rummy.

"Why the Iranians would want to move against us in an overt manner that would cause us to use our air or naval power against them would be beyond me," Army Gen. John Abizaid


I guess no one told Abizaid about Iran's purchase of Russian Sunburn missiles.

Those missiles would make mincemeat out of the U.S. navy.

... perhaps not counting the Russian-manned missile bases in Iran.

<snip>

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.

The US Navy’s only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy’s approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes “see” everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.

<snip>

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2439

"The US Navy’s only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy’s approach well ahead of time"

What are the chances at Mach 2.1?

Somewhere between slim to none.

The missile emplacements would be bombed to bits before they could even be used.

And the U.S. did such a great job of hitting the mobile Scuds during the first Gulf War, didn't they?

*snicker*

And unlike SCUDS, Sunburn missile launch platforms give off distinctive ELINT signatures. SCUDS were launched blind. Sunburn missiles have to locate their targets (Since the targets are themselves mobile); that's what will give them away.

Double snicker.

>>Sunburn missiles have to locate their targets (Since the targets are themselves mobile); that's what will give them away.<<

Sunburns have remote targeting systems.

Read up on the missiles before further commenting.

They HAVE targetting systems which would be destroyed rendering the missiles UNGUIDED. Wether the targeting sysetm is contained on the missile or remote, the missile still has to GET the targeting info.

Suggest you do the same.

This is rather out of date, but gives the idea. I read somewhere
the active guidance turns on in the last 30 seconds or so, but as I
assume you understand real specs are not to be had.

Moskit is the aircraft variant of the naval missile 3M80 (SS-N-22 Sunburn, the designation 3M80 apparently referring to the Mach 3 speed of 1980 weapons) used on "Sovremennyy" destroyers (eight missiles on each) and on "Tarantul III patrol ships (four missiles on each). The 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles have the fastest flying speed among all antiship missiles in today's world. It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery.

The aircraft version, officially called ASM-MMS and apparently also Kh-4, is intended specially for Su-27K (Su-33) carrier-based fighter aircraft. It was for the first time shown to the CIS leaders in February 1992 in Machulishche and then to the public in August 1992 at the Moscow Air Show in Zhukovskiy.

The missile is propelled by a dual (rocket-jet) engine operating by the same principle as the Kh-31 engine. The missile, suspended under the aircraft, has a folding wing. The missile is guided by an autopilot during the initial fight stage, with possible correction by the aircraft pilot, and by active radar during the final flight stage.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm

You go after the LAUNCH platforms. The ships and aircraft which carry and launch the missiles are your targets, not the missiles themselves.

We have no reason whatsoever to do anything to Iran at this point...I hope the Administration sees that.

Gulf the results of an exchange between US forces and Iran are
problematical, a lot depends on who takes the first shot, and
on matters that we are not in a position to know out here in TV
land; but that Sunburn-like systems are a credible threat in that
situation to ships in the Gulf.

My own take is it would be dumb for either side to start something.
So there I guess we agree.

is that we don't HAVE that many ships in the Gulf to make it "worthwile" to Iran to launch a Sunburn attack on our vessels. If they attacked us first, they'd be inviting a massive air attack on Iran...I don't think they are that irrational. Sure hope we aren't

Any such attack by either side would start a general conflict of
uncertain proportions, and we are in a lousy position to pursue
that, massive air raids or not. Our strategic situation sucks.
And if they get lucky and incapacitate a carrier or so, the air
raids are that much less massive.

The point in my mind is more that Iran will not be intimidated in
the present situation, rather than that they would expect to pick a
fight and walk away unscathed.

I don't think either side wants to start any trouble in the PG.

BTW, the VAST majority of US air strikes come from USAF not USN aircraft. Major advantage of land-based aircraft. More sorties with greater payload.

as simple as that.

The point in my mind is more that Iran will not be intimidated
in
the present situation, rather than that they would expect to pick
a
fight and walk away unscathed.

Maybe both.

Which is why it is stupid to be there.

Soldiers, spies, and diplomats conduct a classic Pentagon war game—with sobering results

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/am3.htm

You might like this,bemildred,
James

Still completely inside the box, but reaches correct conclusions,
or close to them. A very clear understanding is shown of the limits
of conventional military force to achieve policy goals, but no
consideration that the policy goals are stupid in the first place,
still the zero-sum, antagonistic logic . At least there is shown
a realization that static one or two moves ahead thinking just gets
you checkmated in short order against a competent opponent. But not
yet the realization/admission that we are checkmated already, not
seeing that far ahead.

This elucidates clearly the rather narrow and one-dimensional way the
US military thinks about problems, too. They believe firmly in the
efficacy of blowing stuff up and killing people. It's an article
of faith, and their thinking does not go to places where that premise
is false. That is "not their job".

I mean, WTF are we doing trying to compete with Iran to be the dominant
power in the Persian Gulf? What dimwit decided that was a feasible
policy goal? And based on what "logic"? We are getting pushed out
of Latin America as we speak, and these folks think we are going to
dominate the Middle East. :puke:

I wrote a summary of this a couple of weeks ago. Such a missile is a problem for the Navy because is forces them to move into a standoff mode. Tactically the range of the sunburn is not long enough to prevail in a blue water engagement but it could force withdrawal from the littoral until they are eliminated. The navy could withdraw and let naval air and the Air Force attempt to take care of the problem.

Targeting is a Sunburn problem because long range aquisition, surface and subsurface is not an Iranian strongpoint. The low altitude ingress and pop up maneuver make the missile PK very dependent on accurate long range target information.

Frankly, I am skeptical of the speed claims for low altitude flight for such a bulky looking airframe, but I assume I am wrong for tactical analysis purposes.

:hi:

"Those missiles would make mincemeat out of the U.S. navy."

...and the U.S. Air Force would make mincemeat out of their entire country.

Wouldn't that be great! Sarcasm/off

>>and the U.S. Air Force would make mincemeat out of their entire country<<

Not without large loss of U.S. aircraft.

The USAF could stay well outside of SAM range and still obilterate Iran. Iraq and Serbia HAD capable SAM systems as well. Stealth took out much of the IADS, and the Iraqia and Serbians were too afraid to turn the rest of it on.

PLEASE no war in Iran...that would turn ugly quickly and too many Iranians would be killed for what?

Tremble before the American wehrmacht's might and power, wielded with impunity and without the encumbrance of any discernible thought process.

And after all is said and done boots on the ground will
be needed.

And, what Iran is prepared to do:

As Iraq’s situation became more desperate, they began to
use deadly methods in war. Chemical and biological
weapons began to be used frequently, and this shocked
the international community as a whole. In 1986, Iran
had managed to capture Al Faw, a Gulf town, and it looked
like they might conquer Baghdad. However, the
American presence in the Gulf meant that the sea
blockade enforced by Iran was finally broken in 1987; the
Iraqis were able to replenish their supplies. Ayatollah
Khomeini was reluctant to accept a cease-fire, but saw
the International community to be in favour of his enemy. In
a situation of increased isolation and weakness, both
leaders signed Resolution 598 and the fighting ended.

The Iran-Iraq war claimed between one and two
million casualties, and either side gained very little territory.
At the beginning of the new millennium, the dispute over
border remained active.

http://ak.essortment.com/iranandiraqwa_rlnp.htm

Just curious. The name looks Arabic.

If I were an American taxpayer, I'd be pissed off about these foreign excursions.

:nuke:


edit: misspelled Armageddon (nobody's perfect)

In all fairness, Abiziad is one of the more reasonable of U.S. commanders. Plus, it can't hurt to have an Arab-American leading the forces in Iraq, regardless of what your thoughts are on the war and its conduct. I wouldn't take all of this at face value, it's just posturing, and it's necessary posturing, because we know that Iran would be able to do a lot of damage in Iraq if it really pursued it. So he's making these threats as a deterrent in itself, because NO ONE wants a military conflict between Iran and the US, except the ideologues living in a fantasy world on either side.

The military is under civilian control in this country...or at least it used to be.

Mentioning the US' like this is tacky and a reminder that the US has never gone to war with a nuclear nation.

Even if it against the will of the people.

then it should be no surprise, it is stated US policy to potentially respond to certain situations with nukes. Now would we acutally do it..is another question.

or should that be "Allah knows"?

:headbang:
rocknation

...and strongest horses too. Where do we find these fucking idiots? Shit for brains Abizaid should be in a rubber room some where.

Don

for such reckless bluster. Do such idiots want to goad North Korea and Iran into accelerating their nuclear programs??? They know damned well we're tied down and getting our ass handed to us on a plate in Iraq.

"...there is no power that can match the United States militarily..."

Oh yeah? A rag-tag group of Iraqi "insurgents" are matching the U.S. militarily pretty well for a year and a half. They're killing U.S. troops at a rate of 2-3 per day, and wounding U.S. troops at about 10 per day.

We don't need asswipe loudmouths like this jerk in the military with access to the press.

It seems pretty hypocritical to stop Iran. The ONLY reason Iran is developing nukes is to protect themselves from the Israelis.

I think this guy played Jessup:
"I'm gonna tear your eyes right outta your head and piss in your dead skull. You fucked with the wrong marine. I saved lives. That boy was a weak link. I saved lives, you hear me? You fuckin' people. You have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee. That's all you did. You put people in danger. Sweet dreams, son."


I feel so much safer!!

WTF? When the military becomes saturated with lying fascists like this worm, then WE are really effed! If they're sane and armed we're probably ok, if insane and armed it's a whole 'nother ballgame. Military dictatorships are not unknown in our hemisphere. Never even remotely occured to me that it could happen to us. All of a sudden it seems possible.

Gyre

Real smart, asshole.

Beat that chest!

War is so, like, 20th century. Has anyone given these guys the memo?

What he just said was:

"We'll fuck you up and we can do it, too. In fact, this is code for softening up the American people that we are about to do it."

Hell's freaking bells.

And is the Afghanistan thing still considered a "major" mission, as it was called in the article? How come I never hear "boo" about it?

Really though, they just sound just plain criminal thugs and wannabe gangstas. Let me salute you, you big boy generals, you stand on so much principle. I am just overwhelmed by by your your civil and Humanistic approach.

It is just so nice to think that someone is trying to keep the peace and be constructive in their practices with the rest of the inhabitants of this good ole planet earth.

Abizaid just threatened Iran/The Earth with nuclear destruction. That lunatic had NO REASON to mention our nuclear capability unless the "PNAC Pentagon" wanted to threaten everyone. Who on Earth doesn't know we can blow the whole thing up???... Mbuti Pygmies in DR Congo? Well, I'm going to enjoy these last few months/years we have... Tick tock, two minutes to midnight...

these fools have been played and the world will just watch as we flail about and bankrupt ourselves.

what we done in afghanistan to the soviets is now being done to us x2, for now... expect it to get worse.



peace

So much chest thumping these days.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1034463