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 Iran attack

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   

“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.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
Source


What possesses this president to push on with his plans. Almost the entire world now opposes an attack on Iran, the group of hardliners supporting this ridiculous possibility is shrinking (even on ATS, you can count them on one hand). If the military's top is losing faith in this war, who does Bush expects to fight over there? Cheney? Rove? Wolfowitch?

To me it's clear on what way we are and why Fema has been ordered to construct new detainment camps.




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Who do you see being loaded into the Fema camps?

I'am vaguely familiar with the " Lets round up the malcontents, and stick them in camps we are secretely building" theory. Is that where your'e going?



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   
We wont go to war with Iran because the war in Iraq is still not over If we do go to war with Iran it will be after Bush is out of office and the democratic party convinces everyone that Iraq is a lost cause wont be to hard most people already believe this anyway even though 90% of the problems are in baghdad and not as spread out as the news makes it out to be.

But to the point no war with Iran right now the democrats will wait until we get attacked again and the process were in now will repeat until eventually all our resources are gone and america loses its power and china takes our spot just my opinion here but possible.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   
There's actually a large discussion thread on this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

What possesses this president to push on with his plans. Almost the entire world now opposes an attack on Iran, the group of hardliners supporting this ridiculous possibility is shrinking (even on ATS, you can count them on one hand). If the military's top is losing faith in this war, who does Bush expects to fight over there? Cheney? Rove? Wolfowitch?

To me it's clear on what way we are and why Fema has been ordered to construct new detainment camps.



The beginnings of this tri-lateral strangling of the region was outlined in Pres. Bush's speech that involved the Axis-of-Evil. Which included North Korea and Iran. This will provide a platform to act quickly within the Asia-Minor continent, and provide a great wealth of resources, mainly oil.

This over-stepping is consistent with the Bush Administration, and those who do not/cannot maintain proper discipline in this action are seemingly "resigned".

I'm going to guess in 3 to 5 years, we will have presence in not only Iraq, but Iran and North Korea as well. This will allow those who want, to have a "platform" to quell any opposition that may be offered. It will also prevent some of the other countries who oppose, Russia for instance, from having a "safety buffer" in which to act.

It's all about WMDs, which we really ought to shut down the networks that establish, rather than acting afterwards as an excuse.



new topics

top topics
 
4

log in

join