It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Generals will 'quit' if Bush orders an Iran Attack

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

US General will 'quit' if Bush orders an Iran Attack


Source Link: www.timesonline.co.uk

There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 25-2-2007 by deessell]




posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Gotta love those "trial balloons." Last I heard , you can still be liberal and be in the Armed Forces. 4 or 5 Generals out of how many? Whoop-dee-do!

I doubt the Commander in Chief will be influenced by a few renegade Generals

The United States will not strike 1st in Iran. Israel, with 100% backing of the U.S., will take care of Iran.

Did any of you trust "British Intelligence" when it came to WMD's? I guess some pick and choose when to believe in "Intelligence?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative

I doubt the Commander in Chief will be influenced by a few renegade Generals



And there in lies one of the major problems. Does it surprise you to know that there are many in the Military that are unhappy(for want of a better word) with the CIC? There have also been many "resignations". I believe that there is a growing dissatifaction with the current Middle East policy objectives within the Military. The possible threat of using Nuclear Pre-emptive strikes is also of concern to many people - Military and civilian.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
How many generals are there in the US military?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by deessell

Originally posted by RRconservative

I doubt the Commander in Chief will be influenced by a few renegade Generals



And there in lies one of the major problems. Does it surprise you to know that there are many in the Military that are unhappy(for want of a better word) with the CIC? There have also been many "resignations". I believe that there is a growing dissatifaction with the current Middle East policy objectives within the Military. The possible threat of using Nuclear Pre-emptive strikes is also of concern to many people - Military and civilian.




This president will, as he has done in the past, simply replace any dissenting military brass with the "yes men" he prefers to surround himself with. As to his influences, look no further than Cheney, the CEOs of big oil, Haliburton, etc.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Once again rr conservative proves he has no idea what he is talking about. There is considerable disagreement in the military about bush minor's policies... for example when the head of the joint chief of staff General Pace directly and publically contradicted, not once but twice the bush administration about "proof" that the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi Shiite insurgents ied's. That just doesn't happen unless there are some serious disenchantment between the top brass and the administration. The simple fact that there has been talk about this for awhile now is in itself significent. and if it happens it will undoubtably put the brakes on any further adverturism by bush minor and will probably start some sort of impeachment proceedings in congress.

I have said it once and I will say it again....bush is going to provoke a constitutional crisis of some sort before the end of the year.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
If the purpose of this thread is to give the impression that the u.s.military is not motivated to attack iran its a feeble attempt at best.Aside from irans recent boasting of its defenses"capable of taking care of any threat"there are many in the services whom have NOT forgotten the american embassy hostages.What a cowardly act that was!Well as they say better late than never!



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The purpose of this thread is establish that there is dissent amongst the military. You may argue that it's only a few generals, but it does highlight that at least some are aware of the ramifications of an attack on Iran.

Those who fail to acknowledge the consequences are burying their heads in the sand.

Is it also not the duty of those Generals to protect their troops?

[edit on 25-2-2007 by deessell]

[edit on 25-2-2007 by deessell]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Let's not forget that there were many in the military in 2003 who were skeptical about the war, and a few left.

Turns out they were right.

Unfortunately the current administration is unlikely to listen to any criticism or advice, even from it's own military leadership.

As for Israel, they will have a hard time "reaching out and touching" Iran, they don't have a lot of truly long-range assets. Iranian targets are considerably farther from Israeli airbases, there are a lot more of them than one (like Osirak), and they are better defended.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Generals can't just 'quit' during war time when they don't like the way things are going. It doesn't work that way. If this story is true that 4 or 5 generals wouldn't be happy and they would 'quit' .. then they would find themselves sitting in Fort Levenworth making big rocks into little rocks for the rest of their lives.

Just the fact that it can't happen tells me that the story is bias crap



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Generals can't just 'quit' during war time when they don't like the way things are going. It doesn't work that way. If this story is true that 4 or 5 generals wouldn't be happy and they would 'quit' .. then they would find themselves sitting in Fort Levenworth making big rocks into little rocks for the rest of their lives.

Just the fact that it can't happen tells me that the story is bias crap



Well, it may be biased but I think the "renegade" generals are saying they dont have enough support to fight another one-arm-tied-behind-my-back type war. I think they would want to run the war the way it should be and not the way the politicians want it run to make them look good. War is very nasty and to invade iran will mean literally pulverizing the iranians from the air before freeing up sufficient ground forces in Iraq to invade and occupy Iran.

We can do it, its just going to be very costly and I think thats what the generals are worried about. Getting halfway into another war and having the support ripped out from under them. Remember, the dems arent above cutting funding to the military and sacrificing american lives to make a point.

I think that if we are going to invade Iran, then the generals will want the full support of the government as well as the american people and they just wont get it, so it is a bad idea.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

I think that if we are going to invade Iran, then the generals will want the full support of the government as well as the american people and they just wont get it, so it is a bad idea.



You have made a very valid point about support. The current two wars don't have support from the people, the allies and congress. The Military is struggling to get enough manpower for the surge now, along with equipment shortages. The troop moral is also very low. They are also implementing stop-loss and reserves time between deployments has been shortened.

All in all attacking Iran is a bad idea and those brave enough to say so should be supported.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Please explain to this ex-Army guy, how a General can just "quit" ?
I don't get it.

Confused,
Lex



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
The military in general is supportive of Bush, from the rank and file to the top brass. Of course there are some that are opposed to him.

For a military general to take a political stance is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.

If they want to resign, then what can we really do other than let them resign. But if they ever were to say tat they'd refuse to follow orders, they'd have to be executed. THis isn't like when a soldier will refuse to go to a warzone, for a general to do something like that, it would be an act of revolution, an out and out insurrection, he and any staff and any soldiers that followed his orders would have to be rounded up and executed.

But insisting on resigning, well, if its in their conciense to do so, then fair enough, dishonourably discharge them and revoke their pension and let them go.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Generals can't just 'quit' during war time when they don't like the way things are going. It doesn't work that way. If this story is true that 4 or 5 generals wouldn't be happy and they would 'quit' .. then they would find themselves sitting in Fort Levenworth making big rocks into little rocks for the rest of their lives.

Just the fact that it can't happen tells me that the story is bias crap



Well, it may be biased but I think the "renegade" generals are saying they dont have enough support to fight another one-arm-tied-behind-my-back type war. I think they would want to run the war the way it should be and not the way the politicians want it run to make them look good. War is very nasty and to invade iran will mean literally pulverizing the iranians from the air before freeing up sufficient ground forces in Iraq to invade and occupy Iran.

We can do it, its just going to be very costly and I think thats what the generals are worried about. Getting halfway into another war and having the support ripped out from under them. Remember, the dems arent above cutting funding to the military and sacrificing american lives to make a point.

I think that if we are going to invade Iran, then the generals will want the full support of the government as well as the american people and they just wont get it, so it is a bad idea.



First off the officer classes can resign anytime they want to after they serve their obligatory tour after officers school (college of OCS)... I think the tour is 6 years now but I am not so sure about that. They simply submit a letter of resignation and hand in their commission. So once again flyer you are wrong.

As for the generals being renegade, that is not true either. Resignation above a certain class or office or rank is and has always been the honorable and accepted way to register a protest about a policy or action that they feel is wrong.

As for invading Iran... no we cannot do it...if we do not have the sufficient forces to stablize Iraq, even with 150,000 troops on the ground we don't have a snowballs chance in hell with Iran even if we shut down every foreign base and send every soldier and sailor we have available to do it with. The country is 2 to 3 times larger than Iraq, it has a stable and well educated population and whether they like their government of not, just like us they will fight for their country. Also if we tried it we would be international parriah's for it and have no allies to help us out. Britain certainly won't. And there is not the support in the population at large for it as well.

I think it good that this is being floated. Give bush minor and his neo con artists something to stop and think about.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

a source with close ties to British intelligence said.


And you guys believe?

Honestly, the generals aren't supposed to take a political stance - they are supposed to do what the Commander-in-Chief tells 'em to. Even if what they say is true, all the President has to do is replace 'em... easy as that.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The military in general is supportive of Bush, from the rank and file to the top brass. Of course there are some that are opposed to him.



That is a fairly blanket statement to make. Maybe you are talking to different people than I am or reading different sources.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   


The military in general is supportive of Bush, from the rank and file to the top brass. Of course there are some that are opposed to him.


I think that was far more true two or three years ago than it is today.

Of the active duty military I've spoken to, there are two types: a minority of gung-ho Bush supporters, and a majority that may not agree but are smart enough to keep their heads down and their mouths shut.

[edit on 2/25/07 by xmotex]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Of course britian wont do it grover, they surrendered in Iraq and went home with their tail tucked between their legs. Britain is not the issue, we know they have niether the will or the ability. I am talking about the US, not britain.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I've known of more than one Army officer who quit because they were so disgusted with Bush and Rumsfield's handling of the military. And they have told me that there are alot of Army guys getting out.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join