0
   

Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 05:16 am
Quote:
Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna.
The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2019519,00.html
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 01:28 pm
depressingly reminiscient
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 09:25 am
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 10:20 am
blueflame1 wrote:
...
SOME of America's most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources...


this is interesting. How can they resign? They are serving officers in the US military, and if I understand correctly, the President is also the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Moreover, as President Bush has said many times, the United States is at war. Resigning a commission is a serious buisness, not to be undertaken lightly. It represents a refusal to carry out orders. Refusal to carry out a legal order in a time of war is insurrection and treason, punishable by firing squad. Therefore they cant resign if they value their lives.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 10:28 am
Steve, "Therefore they cant resign if they value their lives." Maybe they only regret that they have but one life to give to their country.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 10:37 am
blueflame1 wrote:
Steve, "Therefore they cant resign if they value their lives." Maybe they only regret that they have but one life to give to their country.
a noble thought. Ihave no doubt there are many honorable men in the US military.
But dont you agree with my logic?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 10:59 am
Steve, I know quite a few Generals have already resigned. Some because that was the only way they could say what they really felt about the war. "Refusal to carry out a legal order in a time of war is insurrection and treason, punishable by firing squad." Unless the order is deemed illegal then the Generals duty would be to disobey. I wonder what the penalty is for a CIC who gives an illegal order in an unjust, unneeded war as one former CIC has called the Iraq war.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 11:19 am
blueflame1 wrote:
I wonder what the penalty is for a CIC who gives an illegal order in an unjust, unneeded war...
Ah well, thats different. Its just the same in the UK...or anywhere else. Whatever the Top Guy orders is not illegal, by definition. Matters of illegality only apply a lot further down the food chain.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 11:38 am
Steve, well the law is one thing and conscience another. A soldier who feels a war is illegal and unjust and refuses to kill in such a war may very well pay a price if a court disagrees with his conscience. We have such a case being tried now in America. The Officer who refuses to serve in Iraq is willing to pay a price but hopefully at least gets to make his case before the nation and world. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6436965,00.html
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 11:47 am
blueflame1 wrote:
Steve, well the law is one thing and conscience another.
This is true. And something for the volunteer to the armed services to contemplate upon. Once you're in, you're in.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 12:14 pm
Steve, something for the Commander in Chief to consider, it's a soldier's duty to disobey an illegal order. "The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ." link
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 06:45 am
So an Airforce General who disobeyed an order to attack certain targets in Iran could only do so on the grounds that such an order was illegal being in breach of the US Constitution and the USCMJ?

This is the mess you get into with a written constitution. Here its a lot easier. The prime minister wants to invade Iraq. If he's in any doubt about legal niceities he consults his old friend and person he appointed to be Attorney General, who says its all perfectly legal and thats the end of the matter.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 06:51 am
If Iran isn't confronted soon the world will have to deal with them later. Their STATED goal is to anhilate Israel and the USA. It's not like I'm making this stuff up.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 05:50 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Steve, something for the Commander in Chief to consider, it's a soldier's duty to disobey an illegal order. "The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ." link


You forget the part where that soldier would then face a court martial and have to PROVE that the order was either illegal or imoral.
Can Lt Watada do this?
I seriously doubt it.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 06:40 pm
mysteryman, at least Watada has plenty evidence Bushie deliberately misled us into war. The recent Pentagon report will be helpful and Congressional hearings upcoming will be useful too. 6 out of 10 Americans say Bushie deliberately misled us into war. Watada has a case and he's willing to take the heat to be heard. Thanks to the judge for the opportunity to debate the issue in front of the nation. The Cherry Picker in Chief will be on trial along with Watada at least in the court of public opinion.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 06:44 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
mysteryman, at least Watada has plenty evidence Bushie deliberately misled us into war. The recent Pentagon report will be helpful and Congressional hearings upcoming will be useful too. 6 out of 10 Americans say Bushie deliberately misled us into war. Watada has a case and he's willing to take the heat to be heard. Thanks to the judge for the opportunity to debate the issue in front of the nation. The Cherry Picker in Chief will be on trial along with Watada at least in the court of public opinion.


EVERY President that has goten us into war has misled tha American people.

That still does not mean that the orders are illegal or immoral.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 10:55 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
So an Airforce General who disobeyed an order to attack certain targets in Iran could only do so on the grounds that such an order was illegal being in breach of the US Constitution and the USCMJ?

This is the mess you get into with a written constitution. Here its a lot easier. The prime minister wants to invade Iraq. If he's in any doubt about legal niceities he consults his old friend and person he appointed to be Attorney General, who says its all perfectly legal and thats the end of the matter.


The British system didn't work all that smoothly during the prelude to the Iraq invasion.

The question of the constitutional limits of the President's powers is not nearly so clear as some here would have us believe. President Jefferson authorized the retaliation on the Barbary states by the U.S. Navy without any specific authorization by the Congress. There was no declaration of War. Similarly President Wilson sent the U.S. Army on an retaliatory incursion into northern Mexico (after Pancho Villa) and later into Nicaragua, without Congressional authorization. President Johnson authorized military operations in Laos beginning in 1967, also without specific Congressional authorization. All, incidently were Democrat icons.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 11:40 pm
Under the UCMJ and the way Courts Martials are conducted, Lt. Watada is toast. He will not be permitted to make his trail into a political sideshow, and if he tries to do that his punishment will probably be much stiffer than if his defense is conducted the way the military likes justice to be done.

The Lieutenant is guilty of disobeying direct orders, and probably guilty of a dozen other counts as well. Military Courts don't typically give much weight to excuses for disobedience. Not even General MacArthur could avoid being fired for disagreeing with the President and not following his orders. Lieutenants may have their own political opinions, but their duty is to follow their orders. Lieutenants are not Constitutional lawyers, though this fellow will probably have some time while stationed over at Ft. Levinworth to study Constitutional Law to his hearts content. He may feel morally and ethically heroic, but he is not fit to hold a command in the U.S. military.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 06:31 am
U.S. Finds Major Weapons Cache in Iraq

Feb 26 6:10 PM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/26/D8NHMIB81.html

By KIM GAMEL
Associated Press Writer


BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- U.S. officers said Monday they had discovered a factory for assembling sophisticated roadside bombs from Iranian-made components _ the first such facility uncovered in a religiously mixed province north of Baghdad.
The officers, who displayed weapons for reporters at a U.S. base in the capital, said the find provides more evidence that the Iranians are providing weapons used to kill Americans. They include EFPs _ explosively formed projectiles _ that fire a slug of molten metal capable of penetrating armored vehicles and have been blamed for killing more than 170 U.S. and coalition soldiers since 2004.

The display was the latest in a series presented by the U.S. military to bolster its allegation that Iranian weapons are being supplied to Shiite militias. Iran has denied the charge, and some private defense analysts say Iranian weaponry is widely available on international arms markets. U.S. ordnance experts maintain that the workmanship on component parts is uniquely Iranian and too high in quality to have been copied by Iraqi extremists without access to advanced machinery.

Military officials said the cache _ buried in two freezers and a water container, with some of the rockets covered by tarps _ was the largest of its kind to be found north of Baghdad.

"This is a significant amount," said Capt. Clayton Combs, the commander of the company that found the cache in the volatile Diyala province. "Before we have found one or two EFPs at the most and those are usually at the site of deployment. This is the first cache ... that has actually been found as far as a production facility."

Among the parts found during a raid Saturday after a tip from an Iraqi informant were 120 mm mortars and 122 mm rockets that the military said were made in Iran. Markings indicated they were made after the U.S.-led invasion nearly four years ago, which would rule out that they were leftovers from the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war.

The cache also included artillery, anti-personnel mines, as well as more than 150 metal discs, detonation cords, electronic triggering mechanisms and C-4 plastic explosives _ all laid out in piles for a press conference at the main U.S. military base on the western edge of Baghdad. The military said some smaller munitions had been destroyed at the site.

The U.S. military has said elite Iranian corps are funneling EFPs to Shiite militias in Iraq for use against American troops, and earlier this month reporters in Baghdad were shown pieces of EFPs officials said were directly traceable to Iran.

Officials declined to link the find in Diyala to the Iranian government but said it was further proof that weapons were coming from the neighboring country, which is locked in a standoff with Washington over allegations it is fueling the violence in Iraq and seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

"It's proof beyond a doubt that there's Iranian manufactured weapons being used by insurgents in Iraq," military spokesman Lt. Col. Josslyn Aberle said in Baghdad. "But we can't say based on what we had and what we found who's involved in it."

Aberle said caches with components for making the weapons had been found elsewhere in Iraq but this was the first time one had been found in the Diyala area. The discovery comes amid concerns that militants have been streaming northward to escape the security crackdown in Baghdad.

Ordnance officer Maj. Marty Weber said the country of origin of the mortars and rockets could be determined by the markings and the structure of the weapons, which can be fitted together with copper basins to create the deadly roadside bombs.

The cache was found west of the provincial capital of Baqouba. The area is dominated by Sunni insurgents, but also includes pockets of Shiites.

Maj. Jeremy Siegrist, the battalion's executive officer, said he had no evidence Sunni groups in the area were using EFPs and he indicated it was more likely that Shiite groups were using the weapons, which were found in the village of Jadida that is known to house some members of the Mahdi Army militia, which is loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

"We have found EFPs in areas that are Sunni but that doesn't mean that Sunnis were using them. It could have been Shia that brought them there," he said. "I don't have any hard evidence to say that any Sunni-based insurgency group is using EFPs in Diyala province."

When asked if that meant it was more likely that Shiite groups were using the weapons, he said, "I believe so based on the areas where we find the EFPs."

He also said the discovery of an assembly factory cast doubt on previous assumptions that the deadly weapons were made elsewhere and imported to the area, some 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

"From this conceivably you could make 50 or more EFPs," he said. "All of our assumptions, at least in Diyala, have been that EFPs are made externally and brought into Diyala and this obviously refutes that hypothesis in that there's more and they're being made locally," he said.

Lt. Col. Michael Donnelly, spokesman for Multinational Division-North, said it was "the most potentially lethal IED cache seized in northern Iraq in the past eight months."

Last week, U.S. troops found a suspected Shiite weapons hideout in the southern city of Hillah that also included parts to make the lethal roadside bombs.

The New York Times reported that the stash included a bomb-rigged fake boulder made of polyurethane that was apparently ready to be placed for an attack. Hezbollah guerrillas have used such a device in southern Lebanon. Iran is believed to be a major supporter of Hezbollah.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 07:14 am
Quote:
New Doubts On Nuclear Efforts by North Korea
U.S. Less Certain of Uranium Program

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 1, 2007; Page A01

The Bush administration is backing away from its long-held assertions that North Korea has an active clandestine program to enrich uranium, leading some experts to believe that the original U.S. intelligence that started the crisis over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions may have been flawed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801977.html

There may come a day, but I doubt it, when you folks will face up to how this administration has used fear and untruths to jerk you by your chain for their own power-hungry, war-mongering ideologies and interests.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 01:04:58