quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann

With that said, only one thing will cause the entire ME to come together at this stage: fear of the US.  Which is why we will continue to foster friendships with some ME countries, and enemies in others.  So long as we have dogs in the fight, they'll continue to fight each other, and we'll continue to pay for it.

Stephan

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

So if other countries that are power players, but not allied with the US, were to do a lot of business with Iran, and embolden them to push against the US even more, it may push idiots in Washington to do something else stupid?

I am all for pulling back from the ME, loosen all ties in Israel, and letting the whole thing play itself out however the steel wishes to fall.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann

With that said, only one thing will cause the entire ME to come together at this stage: fear of the US.  Which is why we will continue to foster friendships with some ME countries, and enemies in others.  So long as we have dogs in the fight, they'll continue to fight each other, and we'll continue to pay for it.

Stephan

I could have sworn I laced that statement with more irony .

I wonder how much Bush's personal oil fortune grew when we invaded Iraq?

Stephan

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

I tend to agree.  But with him leaving so abruptly after just a year, I wonder why he didn't stick it out?  After all, Bush goes in mere months.  Was he pushed, so that action can be initiated and the US (and a significantly trimmed set of allies) quickly embroiled in another mess out there?

Toe the line, or get fired, and if I can't get that handled you will be reassigned to flying planeloads of rubber dogshit outta hong kong.
GW  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

How quaint...Do you also believe that the Marine corps is part of the navy?

quote:



Or...just maybe he was not interested in being the captain of a sinking ship.

quote:



Possibly he is not interested in being Bush's bitch.

quote:



One can only hope so.  Then maybe they will impeach that warmonger and get someone in who might try to get along with our neighbors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

"Looking back one hundred years ago, you'd find that there was no consolidated Arab dislike of Jews. "
 
This is not true in any meaningfull sense. 
 
 Jews were legall defined as less than full citizens, not allowed to testify in court against Muslims, required to Live in certain area, not allowed to Marry Muslims, had to pay a special "protection tax", and acknowledge t he "supremacy of Islam".  This body of law is called Dhimi.  Christians in Muslim lands had a similar set of restrictions.  It existed rom the time of Mohameds conquests untill the late 1860.  and its removal caused riots and pogroms accross the Ottoman Emipire.
 
I guess it could be argued that they were not "disliked", as long as they knew thier place and didn't get uppity, like Armenian Christians.  At times they even did well.  As long as they knew thier place.
 
If you have never read about Dhimi, you really should.  Most people seem to pretend it was not a reality.  It was Apartied and Jim Crow for over a thousand years....

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

Howdy RL,

Yeah, I hope I'm right on that too. It's mostly a land based conflict in the Middle East and I'd guess the Army and maybe even the Marine (Naval Infantry)
How quaint...Do you also believe that the Marine corps is part of the navy?


top brass is constantly digging at the seams. It's amazing how those that preach Chain of Command so much, have no use for it when it comes to them.
How so?


On the other hand, I have to wonder if this Admiral is looking at the conflict, force capacity or the economic struggles this would mulitply. Hell, maybe he's a candidate for Secretary of State on one side or another.
Or...just maybe he was not interested in being the captain of a sinking ship.

I think that was part of Chavez's latest actions. Drive costs up even further here.
Possibly he is not interested in being Bush's bitch.


Our economy can't take much more upswings in fuel cost expense. We need relief and we need it soon. The cost that will be getting passed on to consumers pretty soon will be pretty ugly.
One can only hope so.  Then maybe they will impeach that warmonger and get someone in who might try to get along with our neighbors.

Bull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann

I missed this the first time around.

First off, as a Former Marine, I can assure you that the Marine Corps is part of the Navy. 
Since you are a  former marine I am sure you were made aware of the difference between the navy department and the department of the navy.
 
 
 There is no Secretary of the Marines. 
Yes there is, he is called the commandant.
 
 
The chain of command for a Marine leaps from Commandant of the Marine Corps James T Conway, to Secretary of the Navy Donald C Winter.
The chain of command for a sailor leaps from CNO (who is the head of the department of the navy)to Sec Nav.(who is the Navy Department.)
Do you also think the U.S. Marine corps was founded in 1775.

LCpl Budge

quote:

Does the US commander in the Middle East's resignation mean that the way is being cleared for a war on Iran?

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

How quaint...Do you also believe that the Marine corps is part of the navy?

I believe they ride on the Navy's boats. Beyond that I call them Naval Infantry to jerk the chain of the Corp. and people like you. Inter-service rivalry is old as time.
Just because someone rides in a bus does not make them a teamster.

quote:



Or...just maybe he was not interested in being the captain of a sinking ship.

I rather doubt it, but you are welcome to your opinion. (caution brevity ahead) I think those Navy Officers are supposed to go down with the ship, if not that is cowardly. Right?
I thought the reason the capt. went down with the ship was because they charged him for it if he got it sunk.

quote:



Possibly he is not interested in being Bush's bitch.

You need to move a tad to the right, I don't expect you to get all the way to the land of moderation, but your contempt is clouding your vision. Bush has issues, but he's not always the bad guy.
You may not feel he is a bad guy but you must admit he is a liar and a warmonger.

quote:



One can only hope so.  Then maybe they will impeach that warmonger and get someone in who might try to get along with our neighbors.

So you rather like the administrations that would bargin away our upper hand to make eveyone happy? The sad thing is it seems like we always end up way left or way right with the opinions and administrations.
I am not talking about bargaining away anything.  I am talking about being a fucking thug.
There is a huge difference between not fucking with your neighbors and giving away the farm.

I do have a suggestion for Chavez, "kiss my ass". He's not a good guy, don't let your contempt for Bush alter your perception of reality.
I think we ought to run our country and let Chavez run his.  He was elected and not appointed.

Bush is done in less than a year and then we'll have a new administration attemptig to lie to us. Same shit different day.
I agree with you 100%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muttling

I think it is yet another example of this administration casting asside excellent people because they are willing to disagree with the administration.  Bush seems to prefer "yes" people to those who ask the tough questions.

I tend to agree.  But with him leaving so abruptly after just a year, I wonder why he didn't stick it out?  After all, Bush goes in mere months.  Was he pushed, so that action can be initiated and the US (and a significantly trimmed set of allies) quickly embroiled in another mess out there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muttling

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muttling

I think it is yet another example of this administration casting asside excellent people because they are willing to disagree with the administration.  Bush seems to prefer "yes" people to those who ask the tough questions.

I tend to agree.  But with him leaving so abruptly after just a year, I wonder why he didn't stick it out?  After all, Bush goes in mere months.  Was he pushed, so that action can be initiated and the US (and a significantly trimmed set of allies) quickly embroiled in another mess out there?

I have a several thoughts on that, not sure that any of them are right but.....


1 - It is traditional and expected for civilian appointees of the administration to offer their resignation after the 1st year of service.  What is unusual is for the administration to accept as many resignations as they have.   I don't know if this applies to military leaders or not, but....

2 - If he didn't offer his resignation, he may have been asked for it and it takes a pretty brazen individual to refuse to provide it when asked.

3 - By tendering his resignation now, he has opportunity to transition the hand over and to have greater input as to who will replace him.  His level of influence and involvement in transition once the new administration takes over may be far less or he may get locked in by a refusal to accept his resignation until they have had time to work through being the new kids on the block.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muttling

3 - By tendering his resignation now, he has opportunity to transition the hand over and to have greater input as to who will replace him.  His level of influence and involvement in transition once the new administration takes over may be far less or he may get locked in by a refusal to accept his resignation until they have had time to work through being the new kids on the block.

quote:

.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann

I missed this the first time around.

First off, as a Former Marine, I can assure you that the Marine Corps is part of the Navy. 
Since you are a  former marine I am sure you were made aware of the difference between the navy department and the department of the navy.
 
 
 There is no Secretary of the Marines. 
Yes there is, he is called the commandant.
 
 
The chain of command for a Marine leaps from Commandant of the Marine Corps James T Conway, to Secretary of the Navy Donald C Winter.
The chain of command for a sailor leaps from CNO (who is the head of the department of the navy)to Sec Nav.(who is the Navy Department.)
Do you also think the U.S. Marine corps was founded in 1775.

LCpl Budge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann
Dude, have you ever admitted you were wrong?  Once?  In your life?
Yes...to you on these boards and I apologized for it.
 
 
 


The Marines are a branch under the Navy.  We didn't like it much, rest assured.  The commandant is the top Marine.  His boss is the Secretary of the Navy.  Period.
I take it then that you do not admit there is a difference between the Navy Department and the Department of the Navy.  Oh well opinions vary.




The US Marines were founded at Tun Tavern, by resolution of the Continental Congress  on November 10th, 1775.  One could argue because they were disbanded, and reestablished in 1798, but I think that'd be pretty silly.
So the fact that one was the Continental Marine corps(that existed before there was a United States) and the other is the U.S. Marine corps makes no difference.
That for a period of more than fifteen years there was no Marine corps makes no difference.
That the constitution authorizes a Navy and almost ten years later congress authorizes a Marine corps makes no difference.
That the two organizations had vastly different missions makes no difference.
If you find the truth to be silly then that is your choice.

Stephan