It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted by The Vagabond
On objectives I agree, though I believe there are other benefits at stake as well . . specifically the means to pose a low-level but credible threat to Russia and China without having to seem belligerent. If I may take an aside to explain that for a moment, consider Cuba, the boogeyman in our backyard . . we couldn't act too rashly against without being the bad guys, just because the Communists got there "firstest with the mostest" [Edited by Don W]
Among the fringe benefits to pursuing the interests that Wizard explained is a strategic advantage for wars that we may or may not have to fight one day in the future. There are plenty of additional possibilities to explore.
On means, I disagree. Ethics and justice are meaningless to this administration. They needed one big event to get the ball rolling, namely 9/11. After that, the mere accusation was enough. "There are affiliated groups there." "There are 3 embassy bombers there" (those 3 people, by the way, were enough to get a carrier strike group plus special operations assets from CJTF-HOA involved- the most inefficient contract killing in world history.
I don't see why Iran would be any different. The accusation is made and the course has been set - they are in Iraq, we are going to treat them as part of the war in Iraq. I do not see the Democratic controlled Congress as an obstacle because they have made such a show in recent months of feigning impotence. There are multiple violations of the war powers resolution both which could be the subject of SCOTUS decisions if they would bring a case.
Pulling the purse strings wouldn't be the disaster it has been spun to be either; The decision to use that money for the only thing that it can fully accomplish [bring our boys home] or to be the bad guy who screws our troops is on Bush's head. Keep in mind that even with Tim Johnson still in therapy, 50 votes gives the Dems a simple majority, so a veto is their only real problem; I say make Bush use the veto and keep making Republicans who will be facing close races vote on the issues.
The Democrat's problem is that they aren't interested in wasting political capital on doing the right thing, because they stand to reap the benefits of Bush's folly yet again in 2008. On the troop surge, while obviously it does have meaning for Iraq, and would seem uncharacteristically prudent if it had anything to do with Iran, it just seems almost too stupid to be as it appears on the surface. How am I supposed to wrap my head around the idea that these people honestly didn't learn even a little bit from Vietnam?
The extra troops seem unlikely to do all that much for security in Baghdad, except for provide extra targets. I could be wrong on that part, but if I am then I must simply stand in awe of the kind of pathetic tokenism that this administration has been reduced to in its attempts to justify keeping a straight face between now and the inevitable end that will come in 2008.
The USS John F. Kennedy will depart Mayport around high tide, leaving its home port Tuesday at 10:30 AM on one final voyage. The JFK is sailing to Boston for farewell ceremonies on Monday, Mar. 5. It will be decommissioned in a ceremony at Mayport on Mar. 23, after nearly 40 years of service.
Named in honor of the 35th President of the United States, the ship’s keel was laid in October 1964 at Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company in Newport News, Va. Launched in May 1967 “Big John,” as the ship would become known, was commissioned and entered naval service in September 1968.
Participating in 18 deployments to the Mediterranean Sea and Middle East, Big John performed more than 260,000 landings on her flight deck which included every tactical aircraft in the Navy’s arsenal. In 1989 two of the air wings F-14 Tomcats shot down two Libyan MiG-23s that were approaching the battle group in a hostile manner.
Home ported at Mayport Naval Station since 1995, Big John most recently served as training for naval aviators obtaining their carrier landing qualifications.
JFK is one of the two remaining fossil-fueled aircraft carriers still serving the Navy. Following the decommissioning, only USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), ported in Yokosuka, Japan will remain as the Navy's last conventionally-powered aircraft carrier. Kitty Hawk is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2008.
Kennedy measures over 1,050 feet long, displaces 82,000 tons and can carry 70 combat aircraft, the full complement of today's carrier air wing. The crew consisted of more than 4,600 personnel when including the air wing.
After decommissioning the Kennedy will be placed in an inactive status and maintained in safe stowage at Inactive Ships Maintenance Facility in Philadelphia, Pa. From a story carried by the AP and edited by Don W.
posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Everybody: It’s amazing how powerful a country we have become. The Russians are accommodating to our war plans. Yesterday they declared they would suspend work on the Iranian Bushehr nuclear reactor claiming Iran was ‘late’ in making its monthly 25 million dollar payments. They’re babbling something about wanting their money in US dollars instead of Euros! That’s a ‘laugh-so-hard-it-makes-me-cry’ kind of excuse. Sounds as if the Russkies know the site of this power plant is about to be blown to smithereens and that it’s high time to put their engineers on the next Tupelov and get them safely ‘out of Dodge City’! [Edited by Don W]
Looks like we’re barrel-assing toward a “They killed Fritz!” type moment. [Referring I presume to the German’s rationale for invading Poland in 1939.] Question is, are we really trying to agitate a military response from the Persians with this small stuff, I. e. these little provocations of ours, setting off small-scale explosives in covert operations within Iran. Or are we now creating a hostility-laden background for a ‘big event’ so that we can more realistically cry-baby those evil Iranians attacked us. Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods
Originally posted by donwhite
I differ with you on 2 points, Mr Vag. 1) Congress - Dem or GOP - is impotent against the President. The Senate is the best example. It must operate by consensus. It happens to take 60 members to shut off debate so that same number is needed to make any powerful statement.
A simple majority is not enough in the Senate.
Let’s hope the Supreme Court does not ever again designate our president.
posted by magicmushroom
6) Your mainstream media dose not accurately report what is going on in the world and what it does report is biased towards the US. 9) No one has attacked America and to say you are untouchable again smacks of gross ignorance; one does not have to fight wars to bring a country to it knees. 11) Sometime before Pearl Harbor the US sold its soul to the devil. 12) America's Foreign policy is about carpet bagging for the already rich and powerful. Money made from war goes in their pockets and the average American gets nothing other than the loss of loved ones. 13) America is in so much debt now that if the loans were called in the country would be bankrupt. 15) The American people are allowing a jackass to tear up their constitution, introduce draconian legislation which can remove their rights and freedom. 16) The American people have allowed their Government to wage wars of aggression on those who do not pose a threat. 20) A young nation and its people that showed so much promise is going down the pan and nobody seems to be concerned. [Edited by Don W]
posted by The Vagabond
posted by donwhite: It happens to take 60 [Senators] to shut off debate so that same number is needed to make any powerful [contentious] statement.
This is where I reap the benefits of having kept my mouth shut about the nuclear option; Constitutionally speaking, it does not take 60 members to do anything. [Edited by Don W]
Constitutionally speaking, the Congress is not impotent against the president, so shame on them if they allow themselves to be made so.
Whether or not the SCOTUS would hear the case, I believe, would depend on what was being contested. I'd be very interested in hearing from any authoritative source which states that under no circumstances will the SCOTUS review the constitutionality of the bills being passed in support of this war.
I of course, who believes the Federal government is my good genie, love it, while others do not.
posted by Vitchilo
You like big government? Just asking . . because if you like big government, you'll love the coming years, and you probably would love China, Russia and North Korea. [Edited by Don W]
However to say that the Iranians hate us (for things we did in the past), and so much so, that they are willing/eager to start a war with us is unreasonable. As a matter of fact, I’m not even sure how long ago it’s been since the Persians initiated a battle. Heck, I think it might be thousands of years. Small, weak countries don’t instigate hostilities against strong, big, superpower nations (like the U.S.). It’s always, and I mean ALWAYS, the other way round. So we’ll just have to wait and see what happens (with Iran).
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Originally posted by Augmenter
It won't be the U.S.S. Enterprise. It'll be the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower.
The ship has just been recently retrofitted in Newport News, Virginia as well.
Precisely because it's just been overhauled — for 1.5 billion for six years — it wouldn’t be a reasonable candidate for a “false flag” sacrifice. But then again, what’s logical these days?