Officials Worried About Summer Attack

[Darth Rotor]

Holy Christ, I wish someone would clean up all the piss.

Why? Have you drunk your fill?

What did you expect, Dorian?

This is the Politics forum. It's all about taking the piss, taking a piss, and pissing contests.

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

We are almost at the point of talking to one another, rather than at one another. That is encouraging.

Yes, one can hope. It helps if one notices question marks, acknowledges when one was wrong about something (like I just did), and refrains from insults.

Loose lips sink ships. OPSEC, does it mean anything to you? It means a great deal to me.

So are you agreeing that coalition forces are operating in Pakistan or not?

The historical record is clear, your powder blue propaganda is just that, Air Force spin.

Are you claiming the air campaigns in Kosovo/Serbia, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001 and the opening period of Iraq 2003 didn't accomplish what they set out to do in record time? All I can do is laugh at such denial of reality. They clearly demonstrated the ability to defeat modern air defense systems like that of Iran's, selectively destroy targets in the midst of urban areas without significant collateral damage, locate and attack essential military, government targets and communication targets, and locate and attack leadership or at least put it on the run. Just the sort of missions I've envisioned in Iran.

Your analysis ignores the fact that the mission in Kosovo continues

That's beside the point. I'm not proposing an occupation in Iran. How many times do I have to repeat that before you understand?

No, they can only be characterized as air campaigns, or air operations. You assume decisiveness.

I assume nothing. Regardless of how the overall war turned out, Serbia's air defenses were never able to stop attacks on the type of targets I propose attacking in Iran. And they had good air defenses. Iraq's air defense system was crushed in the opening hours of 1991. They too had good air defenses. And then again in 2001, Iraq's air defense system was knocked out quickly.

And in all three cases, the US demonstrated the ability to delivery thousands and thousands of PGMs in a matter of days and keep it up hour after hour for days on end. And delivere them with extreme accuracy and little collateral damage. Both Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated our ability to use special forces to direct air attacks against leadership targets and certain other types of targets.

Saddam lasted to December 2003.

Saddam and much of his government was constantly on the run. And effective control of the country and his military was taken from him the opening night of the war. We know for a fact he was out of touch with the reality of the situation and had lost command and control of large portions of his army.

Zarqawi for over two years after Fallujah and four bodies on a bridge.

True, but he was also on the run most of the time. Time and time again, Coalition forces just missed capturing him. He was forced to leave everything he had with him to make his escape. Hence, the capture of items like that computer of his, an intel bonanza. And if the US went after the leaders in Iran they'd have to live a life on the run too and be careful about every communication they made. I'm sure they'd find that a great inconvenience given that all we want them to do is stop their interfering in another country using terrorists.

You are late.

Doing something with that intel ... like sending in the bombers ... is what's a little late.

The historical record show one campaign as pretty successful, 99

You are absolutely wrong for the reasons I noted above. And your continuing use of these silly adhominems is only making YOU look foolish. Hardly "officer and a gentleman" conduct.

Your talking points are showing, BAC, as is your shill style.

Yet another tactic used by people who are losing arguments in debates AND KNOW IT.

Wag the Dog was the name of a movie. What was real life, again?

I gave you JUST two of the examples I could have named. That you won't acknowledge their factual validity only makes you look bad. Of course, I gather you served in Clinton's military so you might have a desire to defend whatever actions it took.

Your spin is showing. Losing cred, fast.

I don't try to hide my dislike of the current democRAT party or the Clintons. And I'm more than willing to discuss why that is any day of the week. Campaign finance violations; tampering with elections; Chinagate; Filegate; Emailgate; abuse of the military; abuse of the FBI and IRS; a number of very suspicious deaths; efforts to nationalize the health system; the failure to understand the effect of taxes on the economy; their bankrupt welfare theories; their victicrat mentality; their inability to stand in "judgement" of people who commit evil; their underlying dislike of the military; their foreign policy; and I could go on and on. That doesn't mean I find the Bush administration and recent republican conduct all that wonderful either. I don't ignore improper or foolish behavior by either party. Do you? It would seem so.

You know I voted for Bush, right?

Did you vote for Clinton in 96?

Those are point defense missiles that I suspect will be used to defend high value targets, and the Iranians probably think that the multi track capability will solve their problem versus our air campaign.

It won't. But it does complicate it. And the longer we wait, the more opportunity we give to Iran to complicate it further. There might come a time when they actually can make it so costly that we can't stop their support of terrorist activities. Then what do you suggest? Send in the clowns (errr ... lawyers)?

BAC - "Indeed, one mistake we made with Saddam was giving his regime too much time to prepare for our attack."

Twelve years?

Do you practice being obtuse or does it come natural?

The lesson I take from studying Viet Nam is that you can't take the support of the American people for granted

Then you learned the wrong lesson in Vietnam. Because as far as the support of the American people is concerned, they did support the war effort ... up until the mainstream media (in guise of Cronkite and many others) lied to the American people about progress in the war and a specific battle in that war. They turned a huge victory (Tet) into a perceived loss and broke the will of the American people. And unfortunately, the President at that time lacked the backbone to stand against the media and set the record straight ... in sharp contrast to the current President.

You can't really blame the people for giving up on the war. Where else were they supposed to go to find out the facts. Wasn't Cronkite called "the most trusted man in America"? And he lied (by omission, if nothing else) to the American people. No, the fault clearly lies with the liberals who ran and still run the mainstream media. It was/is their civic responsibility to accurately report the facts and they have miserably failed in that task for decades and decades.

That bias is why many people never heard there were credible allegations of rapes by Bill Clinton. Or the real story in Filegate or the death of Ron Brown. One reason I think the liberals are so eager to control talk radio today is because they realize it might actually be informing a large segment of the populace as to the true facts in the WoT. No, I'm afraid democRATS and liberals can't tolerate the notion of an informed populace. So they give us glowing accounts of pajama parties and efforts to end the war on a day when our military say the surge is working.

Not just outsiders, BAC.

The military says its mostly outsiders that are instigating the problems that grab our liberal media's attention (like bombings). Don't you believe our military leaders?

It's a common question at staff college, when someone is briefing an absurd course of action, that the instructor ask him a hard question. "What do you do now, Major?"

In other words, it was meant to be an insult. It's a way of trying to demean one's opponent by implying they having less expertise. It's an appeal to authority rather than debating the facts. In short, it's a logical fallacy ... especially given the fact you know anything about me.

The point is that part of the solution to Iraq's instability is fixing the economy

Do you think this little ol "major" doesn't know that, *admiral*?

What do you think the US would look like with 25% unemployment? With 40% unemployment?

Unemployment rose to 25% during the Great Depression. There were a few riots but things remained mostly calm and the people worked hard to get the economy going again. We actually came together and helped one another. Of course, there wasn't an outside influence like al-Qaeda and Iran setting bombs off daily in an effort to start ethnic warfare. What do you think Iraq would now look like if al-Qaeda, Iran and Syria had not been infiltrating terrorists and fomenting trouble the last 4 years? I bet things would look pretty good. So who is to blame that it isn't?

Where is President Bush's political capital to draw on for this new war?

He's not running for reelection. And he's also the Commander In Chief. He doesn't really need political capital to make it happen. Just the will to do the right thing.

They chose that course about a generation ago. Why would that appeal resonate, at all?

Gee ... I think I mentioned something about bombing the things the leaders of Iran hold dear?

Where is the political will in America to do that?

If you look around, it's still there ... provided the American people get told the truth rather than the lies and distortions that the mainstream liberal media have been feeding them for 4 years.

BAC - "And they are doing that to make it harder for us to stop their support of terrorist movements. Or worse, they are doing it to supply terrorist movements with such weapons.

The former more likely than the latter.

You hope.

I am familiar with that narrative.

It may be a narrative but can you say anything in that paragraph is untrue?

BAC - "I've seen no evidence that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon or Syria are training terrorists who are headed for Iraq or funding terrorists activities in Iraq."

I'll restate that in those nations, unlike in Lybia under Qadaffi, who actively set up training camps in the 80's, the scenario is more a "let them live here, turn a blind eye, can't do much about them" mode.

That hardly fits the facts in Saudi Arabia. They have done a lot to target al-Qaeda in their country. Syria may be doing what you suggest but they are not the source of most problems in Iraq. Likewise, Lebanon. Their focus is more on Israel and I think Israel is more than capable of dealing with them as needed. But I do think that were we to do as I've suggested in Iran, they'd get the message too. Call it a hat trick with one shot.

Is Osama in Iran?

His son apparently is, as well as a bunch of other top officials. And it is Iran's government that is funding and helping terrorists bound for Iraq, not Pakistan's government. When is that little fact going to seep through your skull?

Think Monroe Doctrine, in Farsi.

So you think their motives are as pure as President Monroe's? Like I said, you sure are going out of your way to put Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and objectives in the best light possible. ROTFLOL!

3. If we can't muster international support to stop their program

So you believe we must always have international support for everything we do in our own national interest? You and Dean.

4. At such time as the successfully test a weapon, we are left with only your option, with that weapon's base/support as Target number one.

You would attack Iran after it demonstrably had nuclear weapons? Yikes!!! What guarantee would you have that the nuclear weapons they'd built to that moment in time weren't somewhere else? Would you warn them or make it a sneak attack? If you warn them, aren't they likely to disperse the remaining bombs or critical equipment/materials? If you make a sneak attack, wouldn't that really give their government something to motivate their people against us? At least my plan has us telling the Iranian people what's coming. What guarantee do you offer that in the time between now and then they wouldn't have hardened the facilities to the point that only nuclear weapons could destroy them? Remember ... there are signs they are already trying to harden their nuclear facilities. Give them enough time and they will succeed and then you really have a problem.

And what would your attack solve vis a vis the underlying topic of our discussion; namely, their behavior with regards to Iraq? Wouldn't your approach only give Iran reason to intensify it's activities in Iraq and against us elsewhere with still no motivation to change that behavior since you are so reluctant to deal with the source of those activities? Why wouldn't those activities grow and spread faster as a result of your suggested aggression?

It's seems to me that sooner or later you'd find yourself forced to go in and try to stop Iran's terrorist support. Now the question becomes how would you do that? Would you do exactly what I've suggested? By that time Iran might have improved its air defense system to the point they could make the sort of attack I envision quite costly to us. Or would you invade (since you claim air campaigns don't work)? Only problem is that by that time the Iraq situation might have deteriorated to the point where Iraq was considered unsaveable by even our military and we were in the process of pulling out. In which case, we wouldn't have as secure a base for launching the assault. And why would we expect success in an invasion of Iran when we failed in Iraq? One more obstacle. By then we may have a democRAT President. One willing to wait until the Iranian bomb gets tested on a US city.

That's the RoE, that's real life, and that's the American way of war.

Rules of Engagement can be changed. Afterall, necessity is the mother of invention.

Perhaps we need only follow the Australian example ...

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/133375.php "Australian Navy told to fire on illegal fishing boats ... snip ... December 6, 2006 - Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelson has agreed to new rules allowing the Navy to fire on illegal fishing boats..."

In any case, I think if, as intelligence suggests, Iran actually does have a fleet of more than 1000 FPBs around the straight of Hormuz armed potentially with missiles and torpedos, anything we see coming from Iran is going to get sunk. Fishing boat or not. Afterall, those fishing boats could hide missiles or torpedos, just as easily as mines, too. In this missile age, he who shoots first may win. That's a reality of war. Therefore, our warships cannot be expected to wait till attacked to respond. Indeed, don't the rules of engagement say that each commander's first responsibility is to the safety of his ship and crew? That's why Iranian fishermen better heed the warnings we issue at the start and not venture out into what will be a very dangerous environment given the planned swarming tactic announced by Iran.

IIRC, it was not Sec Def Rumsfeld but rather Lieutenant General Honore who was the origin of that sound byte.

I stand corrected.

BAC - "Except we're not bombing anything but instruments of a hated dictatorship."

Hated by us, sure. Hated by everyone in Iran? I am not so sure.

Hated by everyone in Iran? Of course not. But I think it's safe to say that the majority of Iranians would be just as happy to see the dictatorship end as the Iraqis were happy to see Saddam go.

I note that they managed to gut it out for eight years in a nasty war with Iraq.

Yeah, but that was a war where Iraq invaded Iran and tried to occupy it's territory. That's not what I've proposed. (Why do I have to keep telling you this?)

So, if you want to both have enough presence to keep Central Iraq resourced, and stop infiltration, you need the kind of footprint Shinseki was talking about: 200,000 plus.,

But I'm not proposing changing anything we are currently doing inside Iraq or at Iraq's borders. The goal is not to stop infiltration at the border but at the source. The goal is to convince Iran's leaders that THEY should stop terrorists from entering Iraq via Iran. If necessary THEY can put 100,000 on the border to do it.

Shill status noted.

Shilling for who? I think Lieberman made some very good points and noted some facts that hadn't yet been mentioned. Labeling me (or him) a shill does not address those points or facts. It's simply a way of avoiding those points and facts.

By the way, you may have violated Rule 4 with that, unless you are Joe Lieberman. Take a look at forum rules on the quoting in full. A link usually suffices, and some snippets.

Thanks for pointing that out. I may have indeed violated that rule. I'm new here and I'll try to be more careful.

I hear he got some support to get the Senate to condemn Iran, 97-0. Bully for Joe.

Hey, maybe that's where Bush will get the political capital to do what I suggest.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So are you agreeing that coalition forces are operating in Pakistan or not?

I don't think you understand, at all, what I wrote.

Are you claiming the air campaigns in Kosovo/Serbia, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001 and the opening period of Iraq 2003 didn't accomplish what they set out to do in record time? All I can do is laugh at such denial of reality.

No, I do not claim that, but you attempt, once again, to put words in my mouth. My patience with this bullspit of yours is finite, and besides, if you laugh at that, you are laughing at your own creation.

That's beside the point. I'm not proposing an occupation in Iran. How many times do I have to repeat that before you understand?

I understand, completely, that you operate under the assumption that air alone is politically decisive. You and I will never agree on that, and you are quite simply wrong, particularly as the 1991, 2001, and 2003 air campaigns were integral parts of Joint Campaigns and Joint Operations.

True, but he was also on the run most of the time.

Yes, and each day he was free was a day that critical American political objective was not achieved. Comprende?

Of course, I gather you served in Clinton's military so you might have a desire to defend whatever actions it took.

Another marker of why you are a contemptible person. That idiotic sound byte, "Clinton's Military." We in the military did not get to pick the President, the American people do, and did. I served under

Carter
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Bush

President is Commander in Chief.

If you might recall, WJC was not particuarly popular among the uniformed, or maybe you selectively ignore, or forget that, in your desire to create an empty ad homenim attack.

You again show your profound dishonesty.

When you use the words of a Neocon Shill, Bac, you can expect to be recognized as one, or mistaken for one, whichever is the actual case. As it is, you are obviously sold on Silver Bullet rhetoric.

I don't try to hide my dislike of the current democRAT party or the Clintons.

Funny, I vote Republican more often than not, and I sent money to James Webb's campaign. You got a problem with Webb?

I don't ignore improper or foolish behavior by either party. Do you? It would seem so.

More attempts to construct, for me, a position that has no basis in fact, nor my opinion of a wide variety of politicians, suits, and charlatans.

How about you stick to your positions, of whatever merit, and don't try to manufacture out of your fantasies a position for me?

Did you vote for Clinton in 96?

No. Why would I have done that? He was mid way through trying to gut the world's best military out of an ideological need. I took that rather personally. He also cut the force in Somalia by a third, then asked them to do what 20,000+ were doing. I took that personally as well.

Then you learned the wrong lesson in Vietnam.

I think I looked a little deeper into that, since I didn't and don't use partisan blinders in my studies. It isn't important that Johnson was from the Democratic party, it was important that he, and some of his cabinet officers, and for that matter some of his generals, completely missed the point on the nature of the war they were engaged in. (Two well discussed commentaries on that include Harry Somers, On Strategy, and HR McMasters, Dereliction of Duty. If you)

the death of Ron Brown.

Tell me everything you think you know about that VIP transport mission. I have read a couple of conspiracy theories on that mishap that stagger the imagination.

Don't you believe our military leaders?

I am not sure why you ask that question, I've found that what the generals tend to say, when they speak freely, often contradicts the rhetoric out of the suits.

Tell me, do you believe General John Batiste, or not? He led the First ID in Iraq, he led 2d Brigade of the 1st AD into Bosnia in 95, he was on the fast track, was a close aide to the assistant Sec Def, when Wolfowitz had that job, and after a successful deployment to Iraq, and a hard damned fight thre, he turned down three stars, and Third Corps command.

Why do you think a rising star in the US Army did that? Why do you think he resigned? Having met the man -- a finer officer and gentleman you won't meet -- I was shocked at the personal attacks he was subject to from the usual suspects when he spoke freely.

It's an appeal to authority rather than debating the facts.

It is not an appeal to authority when I actually have some expertise in Joint and Combined Operations, Joint and Combined Air Operations, and am formally schooled and trained in Joint Doctrione and Operations. I have had to both study it and apply it. It's hard to get right.

You?

He's not running for reelection.

True. He also, if he is to be as loyal to his party as he has generallly been, has to consider his party's long term interests, which includes winning the 2008 election.

And he's also the Commander In Chief. He doesn't really need political capital to make it happen. Just the will to do the right thing.

How does he get Congressional support/agreement to attack Iran without political support? Did you miss the part in October - December 2002 where he went to Congress for authorization to start a war, or if you will, use force, and got it? Did you miss what his father did in 1990? Did you miss the part where Clinton, to get Congress to agree with him to go into Bosnia, asserted (and we all knew it was a complete load of bollocks) that the mission was only for a year, to get the OK to deploy into Bosnia? (Last US left Bosnia in 2006. One year my butt.)

That hardly fits the facts in Saudi Arabia.

Then answer me this:

Why is PSAB no longer the US' main Air Base in the Middle East?

Why was Saudi soil not available to stage attacks into Iraq? You want to talk about a lightining campaign, what was going on there?

And it is Iran's government that is funding and helping terrorists bound for Iraq, not Pakistan's government. When is that little fact going to seep through your skull?

Since Pakistan's area of interest is, at the moment, terrorists in Afghanistan and of course importing some into the UK (recall the bombers last year?) and not so much Iraq, I am not sure what you are going on about here.

So you think their motives are as pure as President Monroe's?

No, I am pointing out to you that any nation state, whether we like them or not, is going to have a proprietary interest in matters within their region. Their interests include an Islamic, or Islamist, republic next door, ours does not. A regime friendly to the US is, for them, sorta like 1980's all over again, when Saddam (whatever the actual level of support he may have gotten from us, be it small or more) was absolutely not a friendly neighbor.

Like I said, you sure are going out of your way to put Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and objectives in the best light possible. ROTFLOL!

More of your wit noted. No, it is Iran's, whether Mahmoud the Mouth is saying it, a mullah is, Khatami is, Rafsinjani, or whomever.

So you believe we must always have international support for everything we do in our own national interest?

That's part of the US national security strategy, to fight with partners and coalitions. We went into Iraq with a coalition. We brough NATO allies with us. Remember? It is common sense to seek and build a bundle of international support in any international action, be it truly multilateral or only partly so. That's smart politics.

You and Dean.

Attempt at poisoning the well noted. I am trying to figure out how Howard Dean got into this conversation. Check you meds, eh?

Remember ... there are signs they are already trying to harden their nuclear facilities. Give them enough time and they will succeed and then you really have a problem.

True.

And what would your attack solve vis a vis the underlying topic of our discussion; namely, their behavior with regards to Iraq?

You want to go back to the concept of weighting the main effort? The key goal is to get to the point where we can leave. Then, they get to deal with Iran. This year? In three years? Five years?

Don't know.

Rules of Engagement can be changed. Afterall, necessity is the mother of invention.

This is true. I'd be surprised to see American RoE get much looser, but it might. Depends on how much risk, and stomach, the suits in DC have for criticism. My experience that the most willing to use force suits, that would be Bush's team, were, once Saddam was captured, incredibly sensitive to collateral damage, and remarkably unwilling to loosen RoE. It cost us at least three chances to hit Zarqawi, from the air, in 2004. That's right, newsflash: Rummy was timid, or at least, the implementation of the rules and policies that came from his office made it end up that way. ( I have no doubt he wanted Z's head as badly as anyone did.)

In this missile age, he who shoots first may win. That's a reality of war.

That is the battle of the first salvo, and in a general sense, I agree. Does that mean that tomorrow morning, Vice Admiral Walsh should attack the Iranian subs in harbor, and destroy them, to ensure they don't go to sea to lay mines or lurk about with their torpedoes?

Why isn't that done, tomorrow? The answer lies in the political sphere, not in the military sphere.

Therefore, our warships cannot be expected to wait till attacked to respond. Indeed, don't the rules of engagement say that each commander's first responsibility is to the safety of his ship and crew?

Yes, but legally, the Captain has to have a good indication of 'hostile intent' in order to use fires to ensure same safety of ship and crew. Captain Rogers was, after all, exonerated. So too the Marine 2d Lt at Cape Haiten, 1994.

That's why Iranian fishermen better heed the warnings we issue at the start and not venture out into what will be a very dangerous environment given the planned swarming tactic announced by Iran.

I see, a free fire zone in Iranian waters: if it moves, we sink it. Combatant or not. Back to the VID issue. And back to the simple Laws of Armed Conflict, where you don't deliberately strike non combatants. No matter what the press tells you, our people generally don't, and generally use incredible restraint. That's how we do it. Again, unless you have a VID on a combatant, you don't engage it. Some of that is fire discipline, but some of it is the reality of politics and image, which is a hard fact of war in the 21st century. You don't get left alone to have your war and report out later, you have to fight it under a microscope. That's reality.

Hated by everyone in Iran? Of course not. But I think it's safe to say that the majority of Iranians would be just as happy to see the dictatorship end as the Iraqis were happy to see Saddam go.

Could be.

Yeah, but that was a war where Iraq invaded Iran and tried to occupy it's territory. That's not what I've proposed. (Why do I have to keep telling you this?)

Because attacking them changes our relationship with "the Iranian people" and opens the very real option for a loss in the information campaign, and politically within Iran. That is not within American interests.

Or, it makes them all throw confetti with glee. I am not convinced of the latter, see eight years of being bombed on and off by Iraq, Scuds hitting their cities, and don't understand why you think more of the latter is likely. Their soldiers were dying from gas attacks. They didn't quit.

But I'm not proposing changing anything we are currently doing inside Iraq or at Iraq's borders. The goal is not to stop infiltration at the border but at the source. The goal is to convince Iran's leaders that THEY should stop terrorists from entering Iraq via Iran. If necessary THEY can put 100,000 on the border to do it.

Yes, they could, but what is their incentive for doing so? Part of politics is making a deal. They are harder to work with than most, no question, but impossible? I don't buy it.

But back to your point, first step in doing that, as I see it, was taken July 11th. In the Senate. It might be a bluff, it might not, the guys in Teheran may or may not know. The apparent divide between Bush and the Senate takes a different turn by a public condemnation of Iran.

Shilling for who? I think Lieberman made some very good points and noted some facts that hadn't yet been mentioned. Labeling me (or him) a shill does not address those points or facts.

Your shilling was reinforced by your "Clinton military" crap (I recall that epithet being thrown at Zinni, as though Anthony Zinni hadn't served for thirty plus years for a number of presidents). As noted above, if you use their rhetoric, don't be surprised to be recognized as, or mistaken for, a shill.

Thanks for pointing that out. I may have indeed violated that rule. I'm new here and I'll try to be more careful.

I would not know if someone else hadn't gotten a warning and I saw a red mod tag, so I re looked at that rule. Admin stuff.

I get hammered for rule 8 violations now and again for calling a c[rule8] a c[rule8]. Even got suspended for calling one of the twoofers on the CT forum the names he richly deserved.

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't think you understand, at all, what I wrote.

I'm not sure how I could be expected to, given the way you go back in forth in your statements on Pakistan and other topics.

BAC - "Are you claiming the air campaigns in Kosovo/Serbia, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001 and the opening period of Iraq 2003 didn't accomplish what they set out to do in record time? All I can do is laugh at such denial of reality."

No, I do not claim that

Gee ... I wonder how I came to the conclusion you were saying that the air campaigns in Kosovo/Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan didn't accomplish what they set out to do? Let's see ...

I made the assertion "The bombing campaign ... snip ... is designed to change the mind of the leaders of Iran so they don't send such forces to Iraq or against us elsewhere. The leaders will come to view the cost as too great very quickly if you start eliminating all their big and expensive toys."

You responded "I'd like to know how you support this assertion based on the historic indecisiveness of air campaigns, on their own."

I responded "Indecisive? I have to disagree. I'd say the most recent air campaigns (the ones since PGM usage became widespread) have been very decisive. In 1991, 2001 and 2003. They did exactly what they were supposed to do and very quickly. Even in Serbia, where only air was employed, it was decisive. Afterall, it brought a surrender by Serbia even knowing that their top leaders were going to face war crime trials."

You responded, cryptically, "art of a combined arms campaign. Air and ground, full spectrum warfare" and interjected that there were still ground troops in Kosovo.

I responded "Nevertheless, the air campaign portion of all recent efforts have been decisive in accomplishing what they set out to do, and they did it in record time with minimal loss of life (at least our military and their civilians). Furthermore, they accomplished precisely the sort of missions that I have suggested would help change Iran's mind about assisting Iraq destabilization. That's at odds with your claim that air campaigns have been and would be indecisive."

You responded "the historical record is clear, your powder blue propaganda is just that, Air Force spin."

Yes, I see why I came to that conclusion.

I understand, completely, that you operate under the assumption that air alone is politically decisive. You and I will never agree on that, and you are quite simply wrong, particularly as the 1991, 2001, and 2003 air campaigns were integral parts of Joint Campaigns and Joint Operations.

You keep dishonestly overlooking the two constraints I stated in my scenario. That occupying the targeted country or a portion of it with ground troops is not an objective as it was in each of the other campaigns. That we aren't talking about demanding a change of leadership or surrender of that leadership to judgment in our courts, as was done in the other cases. Under those constraints, I think an air campaign can reasonably be expected to achieve the objective I've identified. Why? Because in each of those cases, our Air Force was able to complete the type of missions needed to convince the leadership of Iran that they have a lot to lose and nothing to gain; namely, defeat the air defense system, destroy high value terrorist, government, military, communication and leadership targets, force leadership into hiding, and do all the above without undo collateral danger to the civilian population and it's infrastructure. And because Iranian leaders are not as crazy as Saddam was so they won't want to lose their power, pleasures and perhaps even their lives. "Comprende?"

We in the military did not get to pick the President

Actually, you did get to participate in the election if you wished. Now those who chant "chickenhawk" would presumably like to insure that anyone not in the military have no say.

Tell me everything you think you know about that VIP transport mission. I have read a couple of conspiracy theories on that mishap that stagger the imagination.

Let me direct you to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87011 and you can respond to my post #22 on this subject. Fair enough? Let's see if you have answers to any of the questions I asked.

I am not sure why you ask that question

Well ...

Is Iran behind most of the bombings and many of our soldiers deaths in Iraq? Our current military leaders say yes. You seem somewhat doubtful. Are they lying?

Is the Surge working? Our current military leaders say yes. You seem somewhat doubtful. Are they lying?

Did the air campaigns in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan accomplish the missions assigned to them? Our military leaders say yes. You say no. Are they lying?

It is not an appeal to authority when I actually have some expertise in Joint and Combined Operations, Joint and Combined Air Operations, and am formally schooled and trained in Joint Doctrione and Operations.

That's not an appeal to authority? ROTFLOL!

How does he get Congressional support/agreement to attack Iran without political support? Did you miss the part in October - December 2002 where he went to Congress for authorization to start a war

Did you read the 2002 authorization to use force carefully? It says "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." A failure of mission in Iraq (i.e, takeover by Iranian backed terrorists) would make Iraq a continued threat to the national security of the United States. Thus the President already has all the authorization he needs to deal with Iran in the manner I have suggested.

The joint resolution also states that "the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. So Bush can attack and then report to Congress.

Furthermore, as Joe Lieberman pointed out "The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East." A President has an inherent authority as CIC to respond to acts of war as appropriate.

Why is PSAB no longer the US' main Air Base in the Middle East?

Well unless you tell me that it's now used by terrorists or used to train terrorists who attack us in Iraq or elsewhere, I don't think you have a point of any relevance to what we were discussing.

No, I am pointing out to you that any nation state, whether we like them or not, is going to have a proprietary interest in matters within their region. Their interests include an Islamic, or Islamist, republic next door, ours does not.

You sure are working hard to excuse Ahmadinejad's support of terrorists.

It is common sense to seek and build a bundle of international support in any international action, be it truly multilateral or only partly so. That's smart politics.

But is it always in the interest of the US to delay the amount of time needed to build international support for an action? In an age when dictatorships can prevent any vote from passing in the UN, should we place our nation's security in it's hands? Should we put French, German, Russian or Chinese interests ahead of ours? Should we trust them when we know they brokered deals with Saddam and in some cases even supplied information and materials just prior to the invasion that endangered our soldiers?

I am trying to figure out how Howard Dean got into this conversation.

Dean was keen on our getting international approval before we embark on anything.

The key goal is to get to the point where we can leave. Then, they get to deal with Iran.

Then you haven't listened from the very beginning of this discussion. Because we will not get to the point we can leave Iraq (at least in any rational person's mind ... pajama party attendees excluded) unless we deal with Iran's actions in supporting the terrorists who are destabilizing Iraq.

It cost us at least three chances to hit Zarqawi, from the air, in 2004.

The difference between that case and the Iran case is that Iraqi civilians had no option with regards to being in the vicinity of al-Zarqawi. In the action I propose, Iranian fishermen will know that if they take their boats much beyond the coast of Iran, they will be sunk as a threat to international shipping and our navy.

Does that mean that tomorrow morning, Vice Admiral Walsh should attack the Iranian subs in harbor, and destroy them, to ensure they don't go to sea to lay mines or lurk about with their torpedoes?

If they put to sea after the ultimatum is issued, they should be sunk. If they are already at sea and move in any manner deemed a threat to our ships or international shipping, they should be sunk.

Yes, but legally, the Captain has to have a good indication of 'hostile intent' in order to use fires to ensure same safety of ship and crew.

After the ultimatum is issued, hostile intent will be determined by where Iran's navy, FPBs are, and fishing fleet are located. If they come out much beyond the coast, they should be sunk.

Laws of Armed Conflict

I've got news for you. International law prohibits terrorism. Yet Iran is supporting that and using it to kill Americans. If Iran violates that "law", they reap what they sow. If Iranian fishermen are not smart enough to heed the warnings that will be given, call it evolution in action.

Yes, they could, but what is their incentive for doing so?

Gee ... I seem to recall something about bombing designed to put the continued power, pleasure and lives of the leadership at risk.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not sure how I could be expected to, given the way you go back in forth in your statements on Pakistan and other topics.

The movement is due to your continued attempt to mischaracterize my comments, to restate something not my position as a question, and pretend it is my position. I have written very plainly. I have also attempted to use brevity, not always with success.

If you'd stop trying to confuse what I wrote with what you wish I had written, you'd not be confused.

To put a finer point on it, what you failed to understand, in that terse remark of mine, is the word OPSEC.

You responded "I'd like to know how you support this assertion based on the historic indecisiveness of air campaigns, on their own."

Which is still true, though the argument will never end from the Powder Blue crowd regarding the Kosovo/Serbia campaign. It is certainly as close as air has come to decision, on its own.

You keep dishonestly overlooking the two constraints I stated in my scenario.

You are wasting time, and effort, on trying to sell Silver Bullet soap to me. You don't make any headway by repeating yourself, and still have nothing new to offer.

Actually, you did get to participate in the election if you wished. Now those who chant "chickenhawk" would presumably like to insure that anyone not in the military have no say.

That's one of the dumber things you've posted. Depending on who is doing the analysis, between half and three quarters of the military was assessed to have voted Republican in 92 and 96. Furthermore, there are, or were, about 1.7 million on active duty, not all of whom voted, and the population eligible to vote was well over 100 million. Since I vote in Texas, have since 1980, I want to know how I was supposed to have picked Clinton, particularly as I didn't vote for him.

How is throwing that "Clinton's Military" slur at me anything other than sheerest partisan bullspit? You are not talking to Wesley Clark here, not talking to a politician. I voted for GHW Bush twice, though Perot '92 was a tempting choice until he got cold feet and dropped out for a while.

You might want to remember, before you spit that bile out of your mouth again: It's America's military, and has been since Washington took command. That you stoop to that partisan "Clinton's Military" crap is despicable.

I'll take a look at your CT claims on Secretary Brown's death in an airplane accident another time. Thank you for your link.

We are beating the dead horse, and are back to talking at each other. No value added.

Good day.

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

I have written very plainly.

Yeah. Sure. Frankly, I don't think anyone here has the slightest idea what you think we should do to stop Iran's support of the terrorists in Iraq or even if we should do so now or at any time in the future.

You are wasting time

I've known that for some time. Just the fact that you keep ignoring the constraints that I noted in my proposal clued me into that.

That's one of the dumber things you've posted.

Now why is it dumb to observe that you could vote in 1996 after you made the statement "we in the military did not get to pick the President"?

I want to know how I was supposed to have picked Clinton, particularly as I didn't vote for him.

You are almost as good at parsing language as Clinton was.

How is throwing that "Clinton's Military" slur at me anything other than sheerest partisan bullspit?

You are just overly sensitive. I noted you were in "Clinton's military" because you were in the military when President Clinton was President.

I'll take a look at your CT claims on Secretary Brown's death in an airplane accident another time.

Why not now? Then we can decide if Clinton used the military as if it were his own. And by the way, perhaps you give yourself away by assuming is was an "accident"?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Now why is it dumb to observe that you could vote in 1996 after you made the statement "we in the military did not get to pick the President"?

Go back, read, numbers, party, check dates, then think on it, OK?

You are almost as good at parsing language as Clinton was.

Not even close. I haven't his gift with bull****

You are just overly sensitive. I noted you were in "Clinton's military" because you were in the military when President Clinton was President.

Liar. I know exactly how that term is used.

Then we can decide if Clinton used the military as if it were his own.

That isn't even in question. I was in the military the whole time Clinton was the Pres, and if there is one thing he tried to do, regardless of resistance from Congress or the brass, it was to try and use the Military for reasons of his own. Each president does that to one degree or another, being Commander in Chief, and President, but for my money, Clinton, thanks to the Pax Americana of the time, or the illusion of it, set a new standard for "well, we have it, we spend money on it, we need to use it for something," with the usual follow on of "let's use it for something altruistic, I don't care if anything needs to be maintained. Let someone else worry about that . . . think of the children!"

And by the way, perhaps you give yourself away by assuming is was an "accident"?

Given that General Fogelman agreed with the investigators that it was an aircraft mishap, with pilot error as a contributory cause, that is not an assumption, it is a matter of fact. The term used is CFIT.

Before we go further, you need to tell me the following facts:

How many hours do you have of actual instrument time?

How many hours of actual instrument time as aircraft commander?

How many officers did you know on the 16th Air Force staff, in 1996?

How many non precision instrument approaches have you shot to minimums, in weather below VMC?

How many of those to a landing on an unfamiliar field?

Have you read the USAF AFI 51-503 report on the T-43 aircraft mishap?

How many Class A mishaps have you been in?

How many CLass A mishaps have you investigated?

How many Class B?

How many Class C?

How old were you in April in 1996?

Answer those and we will proceed. If you don't, I know you are full of crap, and a liar to boot.

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

Given that General Fogelman agreed with the investigators that it was an aircraft mishap, with pilot error as a contributory cause, that is not an assumption, it is a matter of fact.

Since you insist on debating this in this thread ...

For those who don't know, General Fogelman was the Air Force Chief Of Staff at the time. He reported directly to President Clinton. In an interview about the crash and investigation on June 7, 1996 (from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/brown_crash_6-7.html), he called the investigation a "safety investigation". Now there are two phases in the normal Air Force crash investigation. The first phase is called the "Safety Investigation Board" (SIB). The second is called the "Accident Investigation Board" (AIB). And every Air Force crash investigation prior to the Ron Brown crash except one (a clear-cut case of friendly fire shoot down in Iraq) consisted of both phases.

But in this case, the order came down from the top (that would be General Fogelman) that the Safety Board be skipped. So investigators proceeded to the Accident Investigation phase and the folks who normally conduct a Safety Board were told to go home and unpack their bags. Was Fogelman unaware of this when he called it a "safety investigation"?

Now why do you suppose this is important? Well, the Safety Board is the phase of the normal investigation process which is explicitly charged with "finding the cause". Indeed, DoD Instruction 6055.7 (http://public.scott.af.mil/hqamc/library/facts/aib.htm) states "The sole purpose of safety investigations is mishap prevention and to determine the cause(s) of accidents." 6055.7 states "Accident investigations are separate from, and independent of, safety investigations. Accident investigations provide a publically releasable report of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and include a statement of opinion as to why the accident happened." That statement of opinion, by the way, is supposed to be drawn from facts that come from the SIB. Further, "An Accident Investigation Board investigative team, using Air Force Instruction 51-503, gathers and preserves evidence that can be used to support claims, litigation, disciplinary and adverse administrative actions. AIB reports provide a personal brief to the families of anyone killed in the accident and to individuals seriously injured in the accident." And finally, "Safety investigations normally take precedence over accident investigations, although they may overlap in time. In the event of conflicts between the two investigations regarding access to the scene, acquiring and examining evidence, and interviewing witnesses, safety investigations have priority."

So it's curious that they skipped the SIB (the phase with priority and which is charged with determining the cause) and proceeded immediately to the AIB, when at the time the had absolutely no idea why the plane went down. Let me remind you, this was even a war zone. It could have been shot down. No, in this case, the top brass (that would be General Fogelman) ruled it an accident and directed his staff to proceed from that assumption.

Now consider the final report from the Accident Investigation Board. Isn't it a bit odd that it does not mention many facts that potential litigants and family members might want to know. After all, that is one of it's primary stated purposes ... to make such information available to them. Isn't it?

For example, it doesn't contain the statements of the military pathologists and photographer at AFIP during the examination of Brown's body who said the hole in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and that he should be autopsied. Brown's family was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding the wound in Brown's head until some of the military officers from AFIP who were involved in the Brown crash investigation blew the whistle (more on that in a moment).

Why doesn't the accident report mention that Colonel Cogswell, the AFIP pathologist who was at the crash site and specifically charged with looking for something that might have caused the wound in Brown's head, reported back to AFIP that he found nothing that might cause it and that the description sounds like a bullet wound and that Brown should be autopsied?

The final report also does not explain the simultaneous the loss of transponder and radio contact when the plane was 8 miles from the crash site. Isn't this curious if the plane just happened to run into a mountain? Now something caused that. Why doesn't the report answer that question? Why didn't Fogelman mention that happening and explain why? These were two seperate systems and either something major in a mechanical way happened on that plane to shut them down or they were deliberately shut off. Yet Fogelman and his "investigators" ignored this?

Nor does the report mention the "suicide" of the maintenance chief who was in charge of a portable beacon at Dubrovnik that the Air Force has admitted disappeared before the crash. He reportedly killed himself (shotgun to the chest) a day or say after the crash over a failed love affair ... before investigators could interview him. The disappearance of that beacon could be significant. Afterall, none other than Aviation Week has indicated in one of their articles on the crash that the behavior of the plane on approach was consistent with being spoofed by such a beacon. Surely potential litigants would want to know those facts. Surely the Air Force would want to address Aviation Week's concern.

The report doesn't mention the fact that the Department of State was told there were two survivors ... not just the one that was reported (a survivor who, by the way, managed to die on the way to the hospital under a doctor's care after surviving for 10 hours at the crash site alone). No, this fact was uncovered by Judicial Watch when they found a confidential chronology of events in the possession of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher which include the following item "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash". I wonder who that other survivor was? I wonder which family didn't get told their loved one survived the crash and died later? Tell us, were General Fogelman and his "safety investigation" team trying to spare that family? If so, why didn't they spare the other one to?

Because of this "accident" report, the families (and lawyers) of the victims never looked any further. Instead the government paid out an average of about 14 million dollars per family. In exchange, they presumably agreed not to pursue further lawsuits (and thereby ask questions). And curiously, the payout agreement stated as the reason for the crash ... weather. Yet the AIB report (and General Fogelman) states that weather played no significant role in the crash.

Did General Fogelman mention any of these things in the interview I linked? No. Instead, he just told the public that it was pilot/crew error and an improperly designed approach procedure. Do you think he was perhaps unaware of these facts? I rather doubt it, if he's as competent as you claim. So what's going on here, DR?

Now remember the military photographer and pathologists I mentioned above? Let's ask you some of the questions I posted on the other thread and see what happens ...

1) Why have all the forensic pathologists, both military and civilian, (except for one ... that being the head of AFIP, and who it can be proven lied about both the facts in the case and the opinions of his staff) who have made public statements said the wound in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied? Note that some of these declarations were made DURING the examination of the body at Dover AFB. Pathologist Lt. Colonel Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds at the time, looked at the wound and remembers saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." By law, if there is suspicion of foul play in the death of a Cabinet member , the FBI is to be called in and an autopsy done. Yet, that didn't happen. And we aren't talking about run of the mill forensic pathologists voicing their concern, but the ones the Air Force itself considered the best of the best, especially when it came to gunshot.

2) Do you know that Colonel Cogswell (mentioned earlier) gave talks at pathology conferences and training classes on "mistakes in forensic pathology" and told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both contrary to what the Accident report claims? You think he could get away with that at a conference of professionals if there was absolutely no basis for that statement?

3) Why was the body of Sergeant Kelly (the one survivor the government admitted) ordered cremated at Dover before her family was even contacted? That's a violation of regulations, by the way. Was anyone ever punished? General Fogelman didn't say.

4) Why did the Croatian Ministry Of Transportation announced shortly after reaching the crash that the black boxes had been found? The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. The Department of Commerce log mentioned above even states, "Chief of protocol Misetic called...The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force claims the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like the recorders had been found instead. Tell me, what boxes on this plane looked exactly like recorders? I'm just curious.

5) Another problem with the claim that there were no black boxes is that this exact plane, just a week earlier, carried the First Lady and Chelsea and, several weeks before that it carried the Secretary of Defense. Didn't regulations require that the First Lady and Cabinet Members only fly on aircraft with black boxes? Was anyone ever punished for this "violation" of regulations? Or did General Fogelman say to "skip that"?

6) Why did the pathologist (Colonel Gormley) who conducted the examination of Brown's body and who declared it a case of blunt force trauma in the accident report go on TV and lie about the facts in the case? This occurred during a time when a gag order was in place preventing any of the officers who were raising concerns about what happened from speaking. But the black community was asking more and more pointed questions so Gormley was presumably ordered to go on Black Entertainment Television and defuse those questions.

Gormley immediately attacked the pathologists who were saying there should have been an autopsy. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound and that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He also denied claims by the official military photographer, Captain Janowski, that two sets of x-rays existed.

Then, he was confronted with a photo taken during the examination by Captain Janowski ... a naval photographer, by the way, who is also on record saying the wound looked like a bullet wound. Colonel Gormley ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible in the photo, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry.

Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's photos from the first set of x-ray slides of Brown's head. He immediately changed his story and claimed that a first set of x-rays had been made but were "lost" so that a second set was required. Presumably, it was the second set whose images were put in the Accident Investigation report. It was then pointed out that the Janowski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm" (a telltale sign of gunshot), which Gormley didn't refute.

Do you know that Captain Janowski made a sworn statement that Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination of Brown, told her that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" was discovered in the x-rays? Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation. Interesting, huh?

Do you care to explain this behavior by Gormley? Note that a few years later, Judicial Watch stated in a document submitted to a court that Colonel Gormley now admits that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they agreed that the hole looked like a gunshot wound, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, he confesses that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in the Department of Commerce (the folks hiding the fact that there was a second survivor and the department where numerous Chinagate violations under Brown's leadership were alleged), the Joint Chiefs of Staff (that would be General Fogelman) and the Whitehouse (i.e., President Clinton). Care to explain what happened at those highest levels, DR?

7) In January of 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP, in response to the controvery, had convened a review panel of all its pathologists. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. But Cogswell refused to attend, following the advice of his lawyer. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Even though Hause and Parsons corroborated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous. Care to explain why the AFIP chief and public relation dweeb lied about the opinions of AFIP's staff?

8) Erich Junger, AFIP's chief forensic scientist and who was also present at the examination, was quoted telling the press that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." However, Junger never visited the crash site and since then, in addition to Cogswell who carried out the search, Gormley has acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole. Why did Junger lie about this?

9) Now here's a good question. Where are the original photos and x-rays of Brown's head? It is a fact that they disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few top people had access. Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer of AFIP, confirmed this. Yet Gormley and the AFIP heads did not investigate or offer any explanation for how the X-rays or photos disappeared. Gormley simply referred calls to Chris Kelly, who simply said Gormley would not grant additional interviews. Aren't you at all interested why they showed so little interest in this? Maybe General Fogelman can be enticed out of retirement to locate them?

10) Why did the AFIP report that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory when Captain Janoski, who was present for the entire examination of Brown's body, did not see any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue? Why did Janet Reno tell the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime when no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists or photographer who blew the whistle? Strange, yes?

11) Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences. They had their homes searched without a warrant and were given negative job evaluations for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years. For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell was even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both proven liars. The signatures are not even dated. Do you think this is fair treatment of military officers who only raised what appear to be valid questions?

12) Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims in December 1997 attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote that "The reports resulted from the opinion of an Air Force medical examiner who did not personally examine any of the CT-43 casualties. They are his opinions only. The consensus of Col. (Dr.) William Gormley, who personally examined Secretary Brown, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology forensic community is that Secretary Brown, like the others tragically killed in the plane crash of an Air Force CT-43 aircraft in Croatia on April 3, 1996, died of injuries sustained during the mishap." I wonder, have the families been told what Colonel Gormley now says about the matter?

Peters letter said "Due to the initial appearance of Secretary Brown’s injuries, the medical examiners carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, their examinations combined with X-rays ruled out that possibility." Both statements are demonstrable lies as I've already proven.

He wrote "The alleged "bullet fragments" mentioned in the reports were actually caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes. Medical examiners took multiple X-rays using multiple cassettes and confirmed this finding." This is also a clear lie. The military photographer who took the pictures says that could not be true given that only one photo ... the one of Brown's head ... shows the so-called "defect". If it were a cassette problem, all of them would have had the defect. So why was Peters lying or who was lying to him?

Peters letter said "the medical examiner determined there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination. Had there been suspicion regarding the nature of Mr. Brown’s death — or the death of any other person on the aircraft — medical examiners would have pursued permission to perform a full internal examination." This too is a lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced at the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be bogus.

Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," the Peters statement revealed its real purpose: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story." Any comment? Or will we just hear crickets?

13) And finally, let me point out that military pathologists are not the only ones on record here. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments". He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable. Tell me, do you think Mr Wecht, who was a democrat, was politically biased or a liar in this matter?

Answer those and we will proceed.

Red Herring. I claim no expertise on this or any subject. But I can smell smoke when there is fire. And I know how to locate facts and the opinions by people who are experts. Like those I listed above.

If you don't, I know you are full of crap, and a liar to boot.

Before you call me a liar, why don't you address the above questions regarding the circumstances of Brown's death? And when you get done (if you even make the attempt which I doubt you will), you can be sure I have many others suspicious facts I haven't yet mentioned. We can discuss those, too. Facts which point to motive and opportunity.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Since you insist on debating this in this thread ...

And the usual CT style smoke screen.

Just asking questions, eh? Right.

Before you call me a liar, why don't you address the above questions regarding the circumstances of Brown's death? And when you get done (if you even make the attempt which I doubt you will), you can be sure I have many others suspicious facts I haven't yet mentioned. We can discuss those, too. Facts which point to motive and opportunity.

Brown boarded the T-43 alive. The T-43 flew to Dubrovik, with the intention to land at the civil airfield servicing Dubrovnik.

The T-43 experienced CFIT in the course of either completing a non precision approach, or executing the Missed Approach (unclear which) in conditions below VMC.

(Again, how many non precision approaches have you flown to minimums, in conditions below VMC, to an unfamiliar field?)

Had the field been VMC, they's have flown a contact approach and landed.

All occupants on the T-43 died in the crash.

So, given those simple elements of fact, you, the detective, must ask:

What is the motive any shooter on board that plane had for comitting suicide?

Your scenario has to play out in this fashion: the shooter shoots Ron Brown in the head, and then dies himself, purposely, with all others who boarded the T-43. Note, other than the crew, these were businessmen sent to explore business development in the Former Yugoslavia, and all of them were potential campaign contributors to the Dem party. They had to die in a crash, with the shooter, for

What Motive?

We can take the rest of this to the CT forum, where it belongs. I cut and pasted my questions, which you failed to answer, no surprise, there in the thread you linked to, thanks again, in our earlier disagreement.

While we are at it, BAC, who killed Admiral Mike Boorda?

Did Neil Armstrong walk on the Moon?

Did Alan Shepard hit a modified six iron on the moon?

DR

 

[Random]

Wait, people are still arguing about the Ron Brown death? You have got to be kidding me! That didn’t even pass the smell test the first time around!

Look, in order to believe that Ron Brown was shot, you have to believe one of three possibilities.

Theory one, Where Eagles Dare: The plane crashes into a mountain. A crack team of mountain climbing assassins get to the crash site before the rescue teams arrive, sift through the wreckage, find a severely injured or dead Ron Brown, shoot him in the head and escape.

Theory two, Passenger 57: A crack assassin is placed on the plane with Ron Brown. At some point during the flight, he shoots Ron Brown in the head in front of all the other passengers. The plane then crashes.

Theory three, Weekend at Bernie’s: Ron Brown is shot in the head. His dead body is then placed on the plane before takeoff by a crack team of baggage handlers. The rest of the passengers don’t notice. The plane crashes.

If he was shot, it must have happened before, during, or after the flight, and all three sound silly. If they wanted Brown dead, why not just stage a car accident, or a heart attack? Much easier and far less convoluted.

 

[BeAChooser]

Just asking questions, eh?

Yes, questions that you don't seem to want to answer.

We can take the rest of this to the CT forum, where it belongs. I cut and pasted my questions, which you failed to answer, no surprise, there as well

Sorry I missed seeing that post yesterday. Nothing personal and certainly I wasn't trying to avoid your non-personal questions. We can now move this discussion there. I'll repost my previous post there and respond to the content in this post regarding Ron Brown.

While we are at it, BAC, who killed Admiral Mike Boorda? Did Neil Armstrong walk on the Moon? Did Alan Shepard hit a modified six iron on the moon?

Nice try. That's the same tactic that the mainstream media used when they mentioned the allegations about Ron Brown's death. Linked it with UFO conspiracists. And by way, I most certainly believe Neil Armstrong and bunch of other men walked on the moon. And I don't believe I've ever made a post about Mike Boorda either. So now try HONESTLY debating the topic on that other thread. If you dare.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, questions that you don't seem to want to answer.

Since they are irrelevant, I am under no obligation, but again, we'll take it up on the CT forum. Thanks.

Nothing personal and certainly I wasn't trying to avoid your non-personal questions.

Got it.

And by way, I most certainly believe Neil Armstrong and bunch of other men walked on the moon. And I don't believe I've ever made a post about Mike Boorda either.

Good, I like to check, now and again, it is sort of a litmus test. Thanks, again.

So now try HONESTLY debating the topic on that other thread. If you dare.

What you claim is "a debate" is what I see, clearly, as the propagation of a lie. We can discuss that on the CT forum, see you there.

Cheers.

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

Wait, people are still arguing about the Ron Brown death? You have got to be kidding me! That didn’t even pass the smell test the first time around!

If you'd like me to address your assertion, repost it on this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87011

and I will be happy too. That way we can keep the topic on Iran here.

 

[BeAChooser]

it is sort of a litmus test.

Mine is Ron Brown. When someone refuses to even discuss what the x-ray and photos show, the statements of the pathologists and photographer, the conduct of AFIP management and the content of the Accident Investigation report, just for starters, all sorts of red flags go up.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Thanks to DR and newcomer BAC for this show. Didn't understand half of the alphabet soup being thrown around, but it was still quite entertaining. Entertaining and unusual. Unusual in the sense that DR was suddenly the rational, enlightening part. A part, I suspect, he is unused to.

 

[BeAChooser]

Unusual in the sense that DR was suddenly the rational, enlightening part.

I wonder if you'll show up on that other thread to prove the rationality and enlightenment in failing to address any of the verifiable facts and questions I listed?