Karl Rove promises Republican insiders an"October Surprise"

[Ishmael]

Karl Rove Promises October Surprise Ronald Kessler
Thursday, Sept. 21, 2006 http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/TopNews.jpgReprint Information (http://www.newsmax.com/reprints.shtml)http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/redpoint.gifAhmadinejad: 'Zionists Are Not Jews' (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/21/132820.shtml?s=tn)
http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/redpoint.gifIran's Ahmadinejad: We Don't Need a Bomb' (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/21/125419.shtml?s=tn)http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/redpoint.gifBush: Democrats Will 'Raise Your Taxes' (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/21/164602.shtml?s=tn)http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/redpoint.gifLaura Bush Launches Culture Web Site (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/21/154837.shtml?s=tn)http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/redpoint.gifMuslim Clerics: The Pope Must Go (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/21/153302.shtml?s=tn)http://www.newsmax.com/images/spacer.gif

WASHINGTON -- In the past week, Karl Rove has been promising Republican insiders an "October surprise" to help win the November congressional elections.


President Bush's political strategist is also saying that the final two weeks before the elections will see a blitz of advertising, and the Republican National Committee is deploying an army of volunteers to key locations to help the grass-roots effort and monitor the elections.

The RNC is offering to fly in volunteers and cover their expenses.


Rove is not saying what the October surprise will be. Asked if he would elaborate and give his thinking about the coming elections, Rove told NewsMax that his take largely parallels what RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said in a Sept. 5 NewsMax story. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/1/165106.shtml)


As for the October Surprise, Rove said, "I'd rather let the balance [of plans for the elections] unroll on its own."




Senior intel official: Pentagon moves to second-stage planning for Iran strike option Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: Thursday September 21, 2006
Print This (javascript:document.getElementById() Email This (http://rawstory.com/email_story.php?sid=3323)

The Pentagon's top brass has moved into second-stage contingency planning for a potential military strike on Iran, one senior intelligence official familiar with the plans tells RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/).
The official, who is close to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officials of each branch of the US military, says the Chiefs have started what is called "branches and sequels" contingency planning.
"The JCS has accepted the inevitable," the intelligence official said, "and is engaged in serious contingency planning to deal with the worst case scenarios that the intelligence community has been painting."
A second military official, although unfamiliar with these latest scenarios, said there is a difference between contingency planning -- which he described as "what if, then what" planning -- and "branches and sequels," which takes place after an initial plan has been decided upon.
Adding to the concern of both military and intelligence officials alike is the nuclear option, the possibility of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons targeting alleged WMD facilities in Iran.
An April New Yorker report (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact) by Sy Hersh alleged that the nuclear option was on the table, and that some officers of the Joint Chiefs had threatened resignation.
"The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning," Hersh wrote. "Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran�without success, the former intelligence official said."
The senior intelligence official who spoke to RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/), along with several military intelligence sources, confirmed that the nuclear option remains on the table. In addition, the senior official added that the Joint Chiefs have "come around on to the administration's thinking."
"The Joint Chiefs have no longer imposed roadblocks on a possible bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear production facilities," the intelligence official said. "In the past, only the Air Force had endorsed the contingency, saying that it could carry out the mission of destroying, or at least significantly delaying, Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon."
Preparation for such a strike would require contingency plans for securing oil transport lines and dealing with possible riots, as well as assessment of issues that arose during the Iran-Iraq war.
"Bahrain will be a battleground as it is majority Shi'a and has had Shi'a riots stimulated by Iran in the past," the official said. "The US Fifth Fleet is also based there. A system for [protection of] oil transport in the Gulf will have to be devised by the US Navy to protect against attacks."
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to repeated emails requesting comment.
Deployment orders
With allegations of a plan in place and contingency scenarios in play, several military and intelligence experts see this as proof of a secret White House order to proceed with military action.
Last week, a military intelligence official described to this reporter the movement of Naval submarines and a deployment order sent out to Naval assets of strategic import, such as minesweepers, that could indicate contingency planning is already under way to secure oil transport routes and supplies.
On Sunday, Time Magazine confirmed (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535817,00.html) much of what the military intelligence source had described.
"The first message was routine enough: a 'Prepare to Deploy Order' sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters," Time's Michael Duffy wrote. "The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1. A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real."
Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner also expressed concern about the deployment orders, but cautioned that these particular ships are slow-moving and would take "a month or so" to arrive in position.
"Minecountermeasures, the four ships mentioned, are generally not self-deploying," Gardiner said Wednesday. "When previously sent to the Gulf, they were transported on the decks of heavy lift ships. The earliest they would arrive would be around the first of November."
Although some claim the Defense Department has denied (http://www.marinetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2116488.php) the deployment order, no official denial has been made. The Pentagon does not comment on operational plans, not even to issue a denial.
Lawmakers in the dark?
Attempts to contact members of the Senate Armed Services Committee provided little help in confirming allegations of the deployment order made to this reporter and Time. Senate offices that were available for comment would not do so on the record.
From all appearances, however, it would seem that at least some members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have not been briefed on deployment orders or on any strike plans, even contingency plans. The Senate Intelligence Committee is attempting to get a grasp on what is and has been going on.
A source close to the Committee, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, explained that a series of briefings will be going on this week and into next.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has "embarked on a much more aggressive review of what the intelligence community knows and is doing regarding Iran," the source said.
"In fact [the Committee has] a number of Iran related briefings this week and next before the senators leave town," the source added. They "will cover the full spectrum including various aspects of their nuclear program and all U.S. collection efforts."

[Onkel Neal]

I hope they've captured OBL, that would be a freaking surprise.

[Skybird]

GWB has cloned himself and named it "Minime". Tons of chocolate are currently used to lure Minime into candidating for the next presidency, and probably he will win the election.

More Minimes are currently cloned to candiate for all seats in senate and congress.

[MadMike]

Why use nukes when we have to ability to destroy Iran's infrastructure with conventionally armed TLAM's, B-1's, and B-2's?

Quote-

"An April New Yorker report (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact) by Sy Hersh alleged that the nuclear option was on the table, and that some officers of the Joint Chiefs had threatened resignation.
"The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning," Hersh wrote. "Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran�without success, the former intelligence official said."
The senior intelligence official who spoke to RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/), along with several military intelligence sources, confirmed that the nuclear option remains on the table. In addition, the senior official added that the Joint Chiefs have "come around on to the administration's thinking."
"The Joint Chiefs have no longer imposed roadblocks on a possible bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear production facilities," the intelligence official said. "In the past, only the Air Force had endorsed the contingency, saying that it could carry out the mission of destroying, or at least significantly delaying, Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon."

Typical "insight" from a "former intelligence official"... blah blah.

The fact of the matter remains that Iran HAS nuclear weapons design information compliments of A.Q. Khan, and IS attempting to produce a nuclear weapon. The question is, who will take out their facilities first, Israel or the U.S.?

Yours, Mike

[Skybird]

Why use nukes when we have to ability to destroy Iran's infrastructure with conventionally armed TLAM's, B-1's, and B-2's? Because their infrastructure does not produce nukes, and more than just one expert doubt that certain key installations of the production chain are in reach of even the heaviest and most penetrating conventional ammunitions. even more, the exact position of certain key structure in top priority sites in not known. So you have targets whose exact psoiton you do not know, and that are hidden ten, twenty and more meters under the ground, or behind stone of mountains, in caves, additionaly hardened by steel and concrete. you can't even hit them precisely.

I said from the very beginning, and still do so, that any war against Iran that means serious business to disrupt it's capacity of manufacturing nuclear bombs necessarily will include small nukes. Else, you only do damage to secondary structures and cause delays, but do not take out the key elements.

The use of nukes is not the first time being mentioned now in plannign thoughts, or analysis:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=1714

[Tchocky]

I hope they've captured OBL, that would be a freaking surprise.

No, they'll release a stockpiled OBL video, just like 2004 :p

Why capture him? He's doing great things for the GOP

[Onkel Neal]

The US will not use nukes. No way.

No need, either. If we take this on, it will be TLAM strikes at a certain number of facilities followed by Marines and Spec Ops insertions to complete the destruction. Then we get out.

[The Noob]

If we take this on, it will be TLAM strikes at a certain number of facilities followed by Marines and Spec Ops insertions to complete the destruction. Then we get out.
Wrong. You will either find nothing associated with Iranian Nukes, or get you Behinds Kicked. :roll:

I think you are Under-Estimating Iran.

[PeriscopeDepth]

The US will not use nukes. No way.

No need, either. If we take this on, it will be TLAM strikes at a certain number of facilities followed by Marines and Spec Ops insertions to complete the destruction. Then we get out.

Har har. Spec ops insertions into Iranian nuclear facilites....Right. A lot more complicated than it sounds.

PD

[Onkel Neal]

If we take this on, it will be TLAM strikes at a certain number of facilities followed by Marines and Spec Ops insertions to complete the destruction. Then we get out.
Wrong. You will either find nothing associated with Iranian Nukes, or get you Behinds Kicked. :roll:

I think you are Under-Estimating Iran.

That's what they said before we went into Afghanistan and Iraq :roll:

[Onkel Neal]

The US will not use nukes. No way.

No need, either. If we take this on, it will be TLAM strikes at a certain number of facilities followed by Marines and Spec Ops insertions to complete the destruction. Then we get out.

Har har. Spec ops insertions into Iranian nuclear facilites....Right. A lot more complicated than it sounds.

PD

I didn't say it was simple ;)

[Ishmael]

I think you guys are forgetting our 144,000 troops scattered across Iraq next door with what would be millions of PO'd Shi'ites both in Baghdad and scattered to the south of there. If you think losing 1 or 2 soldiers a day is acceptable casualties for this war, what happens when they all start targeting our troops? Let's also remember that the oilfield areas of Saudi Arabia are populated primarily by the same Shi'ite Arabs. Can you say $2-300/barrel oil? Can you say $10/gallon gas?

[scandium]

I don't think the US will actually do anything to Iran in Oct. Too risky, too many other committments in the ME and elsewhere, and it doesn't fit their pattern of offering up the usual wedge issues that they know will go nowhere yet still appeal to their base.

Afghan was a given, but it was a half assed job with the locals doing the heavy lifting backed up by air support and special ops - and Bin Laden got away and the place is still not secured 5 years later.

Iraq was also half assed. 180,000 troops tasked with a far bigger job than that of the 500,000 strong multi-national force who only had to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. And that's become a bigger cesspool than Afghan.

Some kind of half assed attack on Iran might appeal to their base who're voting (R) anyway but I think it'll turn off more people than it turns out to vote, since it potentially adds only more instability to the region and puts US assets in the ME at a higher risk.

But they might talk about doing it... but talk is cheap so I don't see this amounting to much of an Oct surprise.

Now Bin Laden's head on a pike, that's another story. And that would be a real Oct surprise.

[The Noob]

That's what they said before we went into Afghanistan and Iraq :roll:

And there you found...nuts. You only got your Behind kicked till you Retreated. And still, they kill your New Politicans down there.

Ah, i just love such Discussions, even if nothing comes out in the end.

[PeriscopeDepth]

IMO, it wouldn't be special forces. It would be the Mossad/CIA. My guess is the Mossad presence in Iran is far bigger than the CIA presence there. I think it would too difficult to get even special forces in and out.

PD

[The Avon Lady]

My guess is the Mossad presence in Iran is far bigger than the CIA presence there.
Maybe that explains the 20% vacancy rate at the local hotels this Jewish New Year. :hmm:

[Immacolata]

WHoa, can we have some board manners here and not paste miles long articles? If you feel a need to have this article read, LINK to it please. Paraphrase it. But this text dumping is polluting the thread.

As for iran's perceived nuclear capability. The US' ability to perceive threats of WMD have been somewhat tarnished lately. Maybe it is true or not. But it so happens that my neighbour is working with nuclear contingency plans for our national security. From what he heard on "the grapevine", Iranians possess rather few of the critical "slings" or centrifuges that is used to enrich uranium... or is that deplete? They possess a fraction of the numbers used normally to manufacture weaponsgrade uranium per bomb. So even IF they have the plans and some of the raw materials, they do have a while to go yet before they can actually make one.

After that, they have the problem of testing it. Once they test it, the world knows fer shure. They can go without testing it. But who knows what it will do the. Be a real bomb or just a very polluting firecracker? For the time being, I think the world should concentrate on moping up the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, not plan bombing of Iran.

[Gizzmoe]

WHoa, can we have some board manners here and not paste miles long articles? If you feel a need to have this article read, LINK to it please. Paraphrase it.
:yep:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=98467

I´ve removed the quoted article from Skybird´s post and just left the link.

[scandium]

For the time being, I think the world should concentrate on moping up the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, not plan bombing of Iran.

The "world" didn't want any part of Iraq and pretty much called it exactly as its turned out even before the first cruise missle was fired. Why should the "world" clean up GWB's mess? I say issue him some camis, an M-16, and then parachute him into Baghdad for a first hand look at his newly created "democracy" (after he's impeached and recalled from office of course). Same goes for Dick, Rummy, and Condi.

Well, in a perfect world perhaps...

[Immacolata]

The "world" should clean up GWBs mess because he made poo poo, and someone has to rear him proper, so that this huge kid in diapers doesn't throw his toys out of the pram again. He might just end up shattering what ever is left of the chinaware that didn't break already.

[Onkel Neal]

That's what they said before we went into Afghanistan and Iraq :roll:

And there you found...nuts. You only got your Behind kicked till you Retreated. And still, they kill your New Politicans down there.

Ah, i just love such Discussions, even if nothing comes out in the end.

??? Whaaaat? Do I need to run that through a decoder?

[Skybird]

TLAMs are not sufficient for the destruction of certain key installations, Neal. Bunker buster bombs , even oversozed ones, even if hardened and dropped from a very high altitude, only penetrate so much into the earth, and not more (we had a thread some months ago describing and referring to the physics of it, it was said that a penetration depth of 7-8, or 12 m is the physically possible maximum before any object with that ammount of kinetic energy gets stuck, I do not remember which one of these two was the right value, I think it was 8 m.) that penetration depth does not help much if the installation is hidden behind massive stone formations, let's say 30m or more, is installed inside mountains, and build by steel-hardened concrete structures, and shock-absorbing cellur design. There is no guarantee that they also do not have included further precautions to absorb the shock or reduce the damage from sub-terranean mega-explosions. No, daisy-cutters and bigger bombs will not do the job on some of the key elements of their nuclear industry.

then there is the problem that we know the places in general - but not the exact positions of key structures. We have no GPS coordinates to program. In some places you lacik the ability to aim your conventional megabombs precisely on the right spot, not to mention a weak spot. you could only target the general area, wasting most of the explosion's blast energy for nothing as long as you do not score a lucky hit. even Your mentioned TLAM's need to be programmed by exact coordinates in order to hit the ntended taregt. If you do not know these numbers, your taregt effectively is invisible. The intel deficit on the exact locations has been described in various articles and form ann y sources, Amerian as well as international ones, in the last two years. It is a huge problem, and it is fact.

It is not suffient to destroy only what is in reach, and delay their program. Do you want to come back to them every four years? A sure way to brake with almost all remaining world'S sympathy when striking first in an effective war of attack - and then do it again four years later. And then do it again. It will turn your country into political rubble.

Shuttling around Marines and capture the installations by hand? Come on, think of it. That could work only with those near the coast and the borders, and I expect such things to take place. but Iran is bigger than Iraq, and bigger then Afghanistan. You enter a country where the population is not neutral at the beginning, as was the case in Iraq and Afghanaistan in the beginning. I know the iranian mentlaity and temperament for long enough now, even those who are of a moderate opinion towards the West will turn into enflamed nationalists if you turn against their country. they love it, in all age groups, both sexes, no matter the political or religious spectrum. You will have all of them against you. You would need to fight with extremely vulnerable units while they are on the move, in terrain extremely in favour of guerilla ambushes or even a conventional defender. you would need to enter some of the most rugged mountain terrain in Iran there is. There is modern shoulder-launched SAM's, and ATGMs, not just RPGs. Opposite to Irak, I know many of the terrain types in Iran by my own eyes. Helicopter transportation on huge scale? Your losses will rocket into the sky. The Sovjets lost twice as many helicopters in Afghanistan than tanks. Different than the mujaheddin at the bginning, Iran has Stinger-like weaponry - from the beginning.

Alternative: ground invasion, and fighting your way into the centre of Iran, so to speak. Again, the terrain is your enemy, and many regions you need to enter do not do any favours to tanks and heavy equipement. You would have no safe resting and supply places inside the country. An abrams travels 300 miles before needing to drink. It consumes the samed ammount of gas when sitting still, due to it's turnbine. you would depend on ridiculousoly thin and vulnerable supply lines. Logistics would be a nightmare, and maybe would cause you more losses than combat at the front. You would need to fight all the time, for every mile, against militias, an army with quite some modern weapons in reserve, a population that will welcome you nowhere, but would like to see your throats being slit when you rest. Many of the various enemeis you face would be extremely fanatised. The Revolutionary Guards is the orgnization by whose design Hezbollah has been created in recent years: it effectively brought the israels to a halt, who maybe did not prepare well and planned idiotically, nevertheless run the show with impressive firepower. I mean, all the place of Iran is more hostile than Iraq or Afghanistan, from the very beginning. If you do a ground invasion there, you would need more troops then in Iraq and Afghanistan, and your losses would be of a totally different quality then during the last five years.

Some weeks ago there was an Amnerican article referring to status of army equipment due to Iraq. they said the army will already need years to repair all what has broken down or is degraded due to wear and tear, and thta units already feel the negative, downgrading effect of this.

Then, national public opinion. your nation's population already is polarised over Bush, and Iraq. Now that you would start this Iran story, and imagine what this would mean to the widening gaps between the two "tribes" you already have? The damage to your national psyche wouldn'T heal in the next twenty years to come.

Is the American people really prepared for that? Is it really willing these costs? I doubt that.

Everything speaks against your conventional military scenario, and nothing for it. It reminds me of Napoleon's advance on Moscow.

It is possible though, that for innerpolitical reasons such an attack is launched - with the unamditted knowledge from the very beginning that the objectives cannot all be acchieved, but giving the impression of toughness, and "doing something". what in general is the reasons why there are still US troops in Iraq now: not giving the impression of having been strategically defeated in public, and that it was a mistake.

I stick to it: when somebody will get serious about really destroying Iran'S prgrom, not just delaying it for 3-5 years, then the use of small nukes on selected targets is unavoidable. I see a clear willingness to eventually use nukes in parts of this administration's audience, and the administration itself. And judging the conventional versus the limited nuclear option, I see myself cautiously shifting towards the latter. It would mean far lesser losses for the troops, but higher losses for the popultion over the long run, because even subterranean detonations will create immense radiation and toxic dust as long as the explosive device is not driven many hundred meters into the earth.

Follwing my argument that morals needs to be decided before, but not during a war, it comes down to this question alone: should war be waged to deny Iran access to nuclear wepaons in probably 8-12, or 5-15 years (estimations vary), or not? If you answer with Yes, you are better advised to will the limited use of small nukes on selected targets, too, else you cannot acchieve your objective, which must be: destruction, not delay.

One thing must be clear, though: the use of nukes will effectively delete any remaining scruples by others to use nukes themselves, and it will immensly fuel islamic propaganda, taking it as further justification to fight the West by means of terror. both national and non-national actors will have this modern precedence as an excuse. Total war always works both sides.

[SkvyWvr]

The Pentagon's top brass has moved into second-stage contingency planning for a potential military strike on Iran, one senior intelligence official familiar with the plans tells RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/).
The official, who is close to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officials of each branch of the US military, says the Chiefs have started what is called "branches and sequels" contingency planning.

CONTINGENCY. This is what every military high command in the world does. They have stacks and stacks of contingency plans available. Anyone familiar with the way these things work wouldn't give this story a glance.

@ Avon, Happy New Year.;)

[Onkel Neal]

TLAMs are not sufficient for the destruction of certain key installations, Neal. Bunker buster bombs , even oversozed ones, even if hardened and dropped from a very high altitude, only penetrate so much into the earth, and not more (we had a thread some months ago describing and referring to the physics of it, it was said that a penetration depth of 7-8, or 12 m is the physically possible maximum

Yes, I know all that. I believe I suggested TLAM strikes (along with MOAB saturation) of the targets to knock down resistance, then insert ground troops at the sites to complete the destruction.

Are the American people prepared for this? Will we do it? No and probably not.

Napoleon?? Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

[Onkel Neal]

Anyway, this is something the Western countries should all do, in tandem, or none at all. I'm tired of the US carrying the burden and getting all the criticism. If it were up to me, I would pull all US troops out, expell 90% of foreign students & workers, and return to isolationism. We have 24/7 news now, we could watch the next world war instead of being counted on to win it.

[SkvyWvr]

Anyway, this is something the Western countries should all do, in tandem, or none at all. I'm tired of the US carrying the burden and getting all the criticism. If it were up to me, I would pull all US troops out, expell 90% of foreign students & workers, and return to isolationism. We have 24/7 news now, we could watch the next world war instead of being counted on to win it.


Well said.:up:

[Ishmael]

In the interest of Brevity. Here is an excerpt from a book written by Marine corps Gen. Smedley Butler in 1932. The title is,"War is a Racket."

The following is an excerpt from a speech Gen. Butler delivered in 1933…one of over 1,200 speeches he delivered in over 700 US cities.

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

[Immacolata]

Anyway, this is something the Western countries should all do, in tandem, or none at all. I'm tired of the US carrying the burden and getting all the criticism. If it were up to me, I would pull all US troops out, expell 90% of foreign students & workers, and return to isolationism. We have 24/7 news now, we could watch the next world war instead of being counted on to win it.


For starters perhap US should stop shenanigans like Iraq. Had us all fooled really well with that one. Now we are wasting I don't know how much time there for nothing. Everyone who supported the US in that war now has poo on their face.

As for isolationism, be prepared to say hello to economic stagnation and social unrest if you do that. No modern country today would support isolationism if they know what is best for them. Not the americans, not the french, the germans, the brits. No one. We are now stuck with this world together whether we want it or not. Which means taking the cake or the crap from whom ever the fickle american voters decides should run their country.

And I will make sure to comment that denmark is among the few nations that has supported USA in Iraq and afghanistan for the full duration of the conflicts. Doesn't mean I think its sign of particularly smart thinking, however.

[Onkel Neal]

Anyway, this is something the Western countries should all do, in tandem, or none at all. I'm tired of the US carrying the burden and getting all the criticism. If it were up to me, I would pull all US troops out, expell 90% of foreign students & workers, and return to isolationism. We have 24/7 news now, we could watch the next world war instead of being counted on to win it.



As for isolationism, be prepared to say hello to economic stagnation and social unrest if you do that. No modern country today would support isolationism if they know what is best for them. Not the americans, not the french, the germans, the brits. No one. We are now stuck with this world together whether we want it or not. Which means taking the cake or the crap from whom ever the fickle american voters decides should run their country.

And I will make sure to comment that denmark is among the few nations that has supported USA in Iraq and afghanistan for the full duration of the conflicts. Doesn't mean I think its sign of particularly smart thinking, however.

Social unrest, but for whom? Not us, that's for sure. I completely disagree with your premise that by keeping US troops in our country and not allowing foreigners free reign in the US would lead to "economic stagnation". The US would continue to trade with the world. Food, goods, and material would still go in and out. Just no more World Bank, UN, and peacekeeping missions. No more US Navy acting as world policeman. The Soviet Union is gone, you don't have anything to worry about except your neighbor, and it looks like Europe no longer has the urge to erupt into war every 20 years like it used to.

We'll keep our cake for ourselves.:yep: And we can deal with our crap.

[Skybird]

Anyway, this is something the Western countries should all do, in tandem, or none at all. I'm tired of the US carrying the burden and getting all the criticism. If it were up to me, I would pull all US troops out, expell 90% of foreign students & workers, and return to isolationism. We have 24/7 news now, we could watch the next world war instead of being counted on to win it.

Understandable, but you need the world probably as much as others need you. Just thinking on the economical interdependencies. The impact on your way of living if returning to isolationism probably would kill any government sticking to it. and I can't magine 330 million people all of a sudden give up their luxury live and excessive consummation of both goods and ressources and live like the Amish - although that maybe is not the worst way of living. Would you? Would I? We both answer No, don't we!?

[August]

Anyway, this is something the Western countries should all do, in tandem, or none at all. I'm tired of the US carrying the burden and getting all the criticism. If it were up to me, I would pull all US troops out, expell 90% of foreign students & workers, and return to isolationism. We have 24/7 news now, we could watch the next world war instead of being counted on to win it.
Understandable, but you need the world probably as much as others need you. Just thinking on the economical interdependencies. The impact on your way of living if returning to isolationism probably would kill any government sticking to it. and I can't magine 330 million people all of a sudden give up their luxury live and excessive consummation of both goods and ressources and live like the Amish - although that maybe is not the worst way of living. Would you? Would I? We both answer No, don't we!?

Sky, never in our history have we had economic isolationism, nor is that what Neal is talking about.

[Onkel Neal]

Anyway, this is something the Western countries should all do, in tandem, or none at all. I'm tired of the US carrying the burden and getting all the criticism. If it were up to me, I would pull all US troops out, expell 90% of foreign students & workers, and return to isolationism. We have 24/7 news now, we could watch the next world war instead of being counted on to win it.
Understandable, but you need the world probably as much as others need you. Just thinking on the economical interdependencies. The impact on your way of living if returning to isolationism probably would kill any government sticking to it. and I can't magine 330 million people all of a sudden give up their luxury live and excessive consummation of both goods and ressources and live like the Amish - although that maybe is not the worst way of living. Would you? Would I? We both answer No, don't we!?

Sky, never in our history have we had economic isolationism, nor is that what Neal is talking about.

Yes, you are correct. I don't know how to make that point more clear ;)
The US would continue to trade with the world. Food, goods, and material would still go in and out.

And isolationism is not my prefered choice but as an American, I get really tired of the nagging and whining about us. If I am at a party and everyone is upset about me, I simply leave.

[SkvyWvr]

And isolationism is not my prefered choice but as an American, I get really tired of the nagging and whining about us. If I am at a party and everyone is upset about me, I simply leave.

And take all our Overseas Aid money with us. :D

[Skybird]

Anyway, this is something the Western countries should all do, in tandem, or none at all. I'm tired of the US carrying the burden and getting all the criticism. If it were up to me, I would pull all US troops out, expell 90% of foreign students & workers, and return to isolationism. We have 24/7 news now, we could watch the next world war instead of being counted on to win it.
Understandable, but you need the world probably as much as others need you. Just thinking on the economical interdependencies. The impact on your way of living if returning to isolationism probably would kill any government sticking to it. and I can't magine 330 million people all of a sudden give up their luxury live and excessive consummation of both goods and ressources and live like the Amish - although that maybe is not the worst way of living. Would you? Would I? We both answer No, don't we!?

Sky, never in our history have we had economic isolationism, nor is that what Neal is talking about.
Maybe, but the US has not become an international player after WWII for altruistic reasons only. International enaggement also means the ability to project international influence. Power. Shape internatio0nal orgnaization like one would want them to be, so that they feed back onto one's own economy positively, not negatively. WTO and ICF are god examples, they directly reflect massive American design input. But if you withdraw from all that, and piss off nations who love the UN (just an example), then why should they be willing to to business with you? even more so when they see that thy can hurt you when they don't trade with you? You need a lot of certain ore and other ressource for hightech, for space and aero technology, for example, much of that comes from Africa. when you project no influenc there, other nations will take over - and make sure to damage you by keeping you away from access. One rival less. Your trade deficit is legendary. If you do no longer pose a threat, or play the international card, why should others continue to pump money into your economy!? It depends on foreign investements. Probably no western economy can survive anymore without international envestements, but no other economy I see as vulenrabel to this as the american. You are livng on credit.no, I can't see isolationsim to be a good option for the US. Bush seem to have been told that, too, in a speech short while ago he also said that isolationism will only damage the american economy. You simply depend on being international. Skip the political part of it, no longer being able to protect the economical internationalsim that way, and you start dying.Isolationism only is an option for someone why can afford to run his shop truly autark. I do not see that conditon being fulfilled, wether politically, nor economically. not only with regard to the US, but all the West. This is an invitation to unite, but it is also one of our greatest weaknesses.

[Immacolata]

Problem is, you cant just expect the trade to roll in and out. Because sooner or later someone is going to blow a fuse. And then there is war. And before you know it, the merchants are being shot out of the sea like it was 1941.

I think the wealth is precisely because, even if Iraq is a hellhole, there is a sort of Pax Romana being kept by the US as the strongest guarantee. Everyone benefits from this. The minute USA turned to isolationism, a power vacuum would emerge, and BOOM. New war.

Let us not forget, when all this is being debated at the UN and about Iraq is probably the 10%. The remaining 90% is just "done" by everyday administration, trade between countries etc. But it doesn't make headlines very often, unlike the 10%.

[Takeda Shingen]

I hope they've captured OBL, that would be a freaking surprise.

The French and the Saudis seem to think that the Grim Reaper has captured him first.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1538569,00.html

I suppose that the war on terror is won. Champagne all around.

[Perilscope]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1538569,00.html
I suppose that the war on terror is won. Champagne all around.I wouldn't touch a zip of that Champagne, because war on the terrorism isn't won solely on Bin Laden's death.

First of all, it's simply crazy to say there is war against terrorism, how can one proclaim war against terrorism, it's unworkable. For the type of enemy we fight, its simple, for every one of them we kill, 2 sprouts out, out of rage. It's printed in the book, for them the book is the only way. Therefore, for eternity we will see terrorism. You can appease it, but not eradicate it.

[Takeda Shingen]

I wouldn't touch a zip of that Champagne, because war on the terrorism isn't won solely on Bin Laden's death.

Clearly.

[scandium]

If there's any substance to the rumour of Bin Laden's death (of natural causes while roaming the ME a free man not so good, little satisfaction there) then that could be the Oct surprise. I'm hoping whathever the cause, that he is either dead or captured as this guy's been on the loose far too long for public enemy #1.

Either way of course the fight goes on, but the "war"? Never been fond of that "war on terror" phrase. Great campaign slogan, absolutely useless in terms of defining accurately how one must deal with terrorism.

[bradclark1]

Think about this. Maybe it's not a good thing if ObL is dead. He's pretty good at playing the hidden rabbit and as such is not a lightening rod for terrorists to get behind anymore. He's more useful alive then dead. Food for thought.

[Skybird]

This one would be a surprise at least to the president, judging by his earlier claims about WOT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?hp&ex=1159156800&en=22b7a0941b08007f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Takeda Shingen]

If there's any substance to the rumour of Bin Laden's death (of natural causes while roaming the ME a free man not so good, little satisfaction there) then that could be the Oct surprise. I'm hoping whathever the cause, that he is either dead or captured as this guy's been on the loose far too long for public enemy #1.

Either way of course the fight goes on, but the "war"? Never been fond of that "war on terror" phrase. Great campaign slogan, absolutely useless in terms of defining accurately how one must deal with terrorism.

Of course it does not matter if bin Laden is alive, dead or vacationing in Tahiti. If the reports are true, and this does seem to be a big if, it will not change America's problems and policies what-so-ever. Furthermore, if he has still not died from dissease or old age at this point, it is that which remains his biggest threat for the future, not the US military.

I agree with the inappropriate nature of the term 'War on Terror', but it is the term used. Personally, I have a strong preference for 'Middle Eastern Foriegn Policy Blunder'. Catchy, isn't it?

[Immacolata]

When people link to articles, could they give a short recap of the contents? Would be really swell. I don't even care if it is just the headline.