Fallon No "Ass-Kissing Little Shit," and March Madness May Mean War

[ritehook]

I'm a huge fan of the NCAA Tournament. The best sporting event in the world, IMHO. Not only for betting, but for watching. I'd watch it even if I didn't have bets on some of the games.

But when the top military man in the MidEast calls Bush's boy Petraeus an "ass-kissing little sh*t", you know there is some serious conflict on policy among the folks who control our lives.

Yep, I love March Madness, ut there's another big show that won't be as entertaining, that may be coming soon to a (war) theatre near you.

The firing (which absolutely is what it was) of Admiral Fallon, who openly opposes war on Iran, could well signal a last-ditch attempt by the neocons and their Oval Office sock puppet to actualize the foreign policy of another country. And risk a global confragration that will likely bring us dozens of 9-11s.

Time is runnnng out on the neos. Much past Sept and they won't be able to do anything. March Madness. It may be Summer Insanity.

For those interested, here's a "behind the headlines" scoop on the grave issue that Fallon's firing implies.

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12503

[Deuce]

13 billion dollars is lost in result of March Madness. Sersly. Production rates slow way down.

[ritehook]

13 billion dollars is lost in result of March Madness. Sersly. Production rates slow way down.

I guess you're talking of work production. I don't doubt it. Not just the time people spend at the water cooler putting in thier brakets for the office pool, but grabbing a lot of peeks at their computers for live feeds, scores.

Like in Mexico and other countries when the World Cup is on.
Same thing. This is our sports festival. NCAA should take a hard look - same thing could happen with a football playoff.

[The HG]

ritehook there is zero chance the US will do anything in Iran without broad international support.

[coldhardfacts]

I firmly believe that the Ritehooks of the world are the ones who are doing everything they can to embroil us in a war with Iran so that they can further their agenda (and it's quite obvious what that is).

As one who opposed the Iraq war, it puzzled me why, before our invasion, all of the anti-war protesters here and elsewhere around the world were targeting Bush. Why weren't they targeting Saddam - demanding that he allow the inspectors in, and renounce WMDs? If they would have done so, international pressure on Saddam would have been overwhelming, and he would have had no choice but to comply. This would have eliminated the casus belli, and even if Bush and the "neocons" had still wanted a war, there would have been no way they could have mustered popular support for one. The answer is simple - THE PROTESTERS VIEWED BUSH AS MORE EVIL THAN SADDAM!

By the same token, these "hypocrisy now" folks are the number one apologists for the oppressive, terrorist-supporting Iranian regime. They refuse to demand - in fact, don't believe it's in their interests - that all Iranian nuclear development and support for terrorist organizations stop. This gives the Iranians carte blanche to continue to brutalize their people and threaten world stability. While most sane people realize that war should only ever be a last resort, no one with the slightest bit of sense (not even Admiral Fallon) believes that we should ever take the military option off the table when dealing with dangerous, meddling countries like Iran. It's the ones with the haywire moral compasses, like Ritehook, who are the real problem.

[Thor4140]

I firmly believe that the Ritehooks of the world are the ones who are doing everything they can to embroil us in a war with Iran so that they can further their agenda (and it's quite obvious what that is).

As one who opposed the Iraq war, it puzzled me why, before our invasion, all of the anti-war protesters here and elsewhere around the world were targeting Bush. Why weren't they targeting Saddam - demanding that he allow the inspectors in, and renounce WMDs? If they would have done so, international pressure on Saddam would have been overwhelming, and he would have had no choice but to comply. This would have eliminated the casus belli, and even if Bush and the "neocons" had still wanted a war, there would have been no way they could have mustered popular support for one. The answer is simple - THE PROTESTERS VIEWED BUSH AS MORE EVIL THAN SADDAM!

By the same token, these "hypocrisy now" folks are the number one apologists for the oppressive, terrorist-supporting Iranian regime. They refuse to demand - in fact, don't believe it's in their interests - that all Iranian nuclear development and support for terrorist organizations stop. This gives the Iranians carte blanche to continue to brutalize their people and threaten world stability. While most sane people realize that war should only ever be a last resort, no one with the slightest bit of sense (not even Admiral Fallon) believes that we should ever take the military option off the table when dealing with dangerous, meddling countries like Iran. It's the ones with the haywire moral compasses, like Ritehook, who are the real problem.

Saddam was contain like a little school girl. The same Saddam we used to be friends with. If he didn't sit on top of all that oil we wouldn't even bother with him.

[ritehook]

Been out of town for a day and a half.

Saddam was not barring inspectors. They were there, and could find no evidence of WMDs. And we now know that the Nigerian uranian cake story was a fabrication.

The Wmd story was bogus, the "Saddam is an associate of Bin Laden" was bogus (they hated each other), the whole thing was a classic case of a nation being lied into war.

Why? Again, read the 1996 essay online, A Clean Break. The right wing of a sacrosanct ME nation wanted to remove Saddam from power. And we did it for them. As the Neocon agents want us to do now with Iran.

btw, chf, "terrorist groups" is a a weapon of war. The Brits so described the American revolutionists; England so described the irregular bombers and assassins who founded the Israeli state; and, yes, the USA supports groups designated by the UN as terrorist. (chf, if you want the names of these groups let me know).

While I would not bet more than a nickel that there will be a US attack on Iran, I don't think you can simply dismiss it. The Neos don't care about what the "international community" thinks. They act in their own interest.

Would that the US would do likewise.

[Oscar]

ritehook there is zero chance the US will do anything in Iran without broad international support.

that's a shame - we should hit them tonight