Perhaps you missed the B-52 strikes against Hanoi during Linebacker I & II in 1972. Better leave the leaping to frogs and see if you can cite any actual facts to go along with your proclamations.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Political Hack to Run CIA
- Thread starter Cleon
- Start date
Perhaps you missed the B-52 strikes against Hanoi during Linebacker I & II in 1972. Better leave the leaping to frogs and see if you can cite any actual facts to go along with your proclamations.
First off it was JFK who sabotaged the CIA plan by refusing to supply air power. How dare Dulles siphon off Nazi scientists to the U.S. and not leave them to be taken by the Soviets! What is this "official" 1947 closure date? Do you also think the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss were innocent?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
The B-52 strikes during the Vietnam War were not even remotely similar to what occurred during World War Two.
In fact, when a single B-52 accidentally dropped its payload in the wrong place and hit a hospital, this collateral damage was such a rare occurrence that North Vietnam attempted to turn it into a major propaganda point. Turns out the hospital was only 200 yards from a military position any way.
The B-52s were substantially more accurate than WW2 bombers, and bombing was targeted against specific military targets which could be isolated and hit directly.
In contrast during WW2 bombers were not accurate at all, and urban areas themselves were specifically targeted for attack.
Because the Norden bomb sight was ineffective when there was cloud cover means that the Allies purposely targeted hospitals in WWII?
What does the fact that technology progressed during the intervening years of WWII and Vietnam have to do with your assertion that air bombardment of cities was illegal after WWII?
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
If the intent in appointing Panetta is to try and rid the CIA of the scandals of the last 7+ years then one must also be prepared to accept the consequences of that. We had a risk adverse CIA under Clinton and it was terrible at its job as a result. We had a much more proactive CIA under Bush but the means by which it happened offended many.
So the question is do we trade off the values of a free republic for a more capable agency? There are arguments in favor of doing the bad things because it can get results. There are also arguments that the renouncement of our core values are not worth those improved results. So, where do we draw the line and are we prepared to accept the consequences?
It will be interesting to see what road Panetta goes down and how it works out.
So the question is do we trade off the values of a free republic for a more capable agency? There are arguments in favor of doing the bad things because it can get results. There are also arguments that the renouncement of our core values are not worth those improved results. So, where do we draw the line and are we prepared to accept the consequences?
It will be interesting to see what road Panetta goes down and how it works out.
Well the diversity quilts were a nice touch.
http://media.www.spectatornews.com/...cal.Correctness.Has.Gone.Too.Far-146499.shtml
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Um... no. How on earth did you get that from my post?
Improvements in bombing accuracy was in part due to the outlawing of general area bombing after World War Two.
The laws in effect in WW2 were out-dated laws that essentially turned any urban area with military targets in it, into a single large target, thus making area bombing of civilian cities legal.
After WW2 this was tightened so that only specific targets inside the city could be considered legitimate, and that the presence of military targets within the city area did not render the entire city a target any more. Thus the area bombing of civilian cities became illegal, which is why it hasn't been done since WW2 except by war criminals.
All things being equal, we want someone at the CIA with an extensive intelligence background. Is Panetta so scary good that his skills outweight his lack of CIA experience? That's a hard sell, and the first reaction of many key democrats was to blast this pick. Presumably they'll be taken behind the woodshed and fall in line. Clinton never spoke to his CIA head so it's not an important position anyway 
Is it that surprising that Obama's cabinet and picks resemble those of the Clinton administration? Clinton was only 8 years ago and many of the same faces are still around. Sure, the Hope-and-Changers must be disappointed but get over it. It's business as usual down there in DC.
Is it that surprising that Obama's cabinet and picks resemble those of the Clinton administration? Clinton was only 8 years ago and many of the same faces are still around. Sure, the Hope-and-Changers must be disappointed but get over it. It's business as usual down there in DC.
PogoPedant
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 763
Check out the word 'and' in gumboot's sentence; There's semantics in them thar conjunctions.
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
What an idiotic post. Not only did you insult Australia for no reason at all, you also weren't smart enough to realise that Gumboot is a New Zealander.
Please cite this "law" that prohibits using conventional bombing of targets that might threaten civilians? Are nuclear weapons finicky about not killing civilians? The advent of nuclear weapons negated the point of area bombing cities.
You said that there are numerous military actions the Allies used in WWII that became "illegal" after the war. I am still waiting for you to come with one of them.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4326063#post4326063
No wonder he doesn't know what a Vegemite is. So you agree there is reason to insult New Zealand?
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 8,746
He is more than qualified to administer the CIA, As far as I am concerned, the biggest problem I see with Panetta’s appointment is that he will have a difficult time dealing with his subordinates in the agency. If I were him, I wouldn’t trust anyone in that agency one inch.
But, if he is mentally strong enough, he may be just what we need to take the trash out.
But, if he is mentally strong enough, he may be just what we need to take the trash out.
Last edited:
Did absolutely anyone notice that he was the chief operations officer for intelligence at Fort Ord?
No experience in intelligence?
For everyone who didn't do a single bit of background research to determine if he had any experience (Cleon), and then made an assumption based on lazy research, y'all earned this:
EPIC FAIL
No experience in intelligence?
For everyone who didn't do a single bit of background research to determine if he had any experience (Cleon), and then made an assumption based on lazy research, y'all earned this:
EPIC FAIL
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 8,746
Why?
It’s not the job of the agency head to run the technical operations, but rather to administer the agency so that those whose jobs it is to run the technical operations can do so most effectively. He is a competent administer.
A big part of his success will be dependant on what the current moral / attitude is among CIA staff.
How many of them are inexorably wedded to the Dick Cheney philosophy of “The end justifies the means” and how many are willing to admit that the means used over the past 8 years have been ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst?
A fresh approach is sorely needed.
madurobob
Philosopher
Fort Ord? Isn't that the one right on the beach in Moneterey? The one considered the "club med" of military bases?
Nice place to be COO of intelligence, I guess.
ETA: and in 1966... as a first lieutenant. Who "joined the military intelligence unit not because of a fascination with all things spooky but because it spelled a briefer commission than a stint as a military lawyer"
I still prefer to think of him as an intelligence outsider.
Nice place to be COO of intelligence, I guess.
ETA: and in 1966... as a first lieutenant. Who "joined the military intelligence unit not because of a fascination with all things spooky but because it spelled a briefer commission than a stint as a military lawyer"
I still prefer to think of him as an intelligence outsider.
Last edited:
Cleon
King of the Pod People
You left some details out:
This was 40+ years ago, as a low-level officer (First Lieutenant), and his entire military career (including said post) lasted a whopping two years.
Epic Fail, indeed.
No no no, the goalposts have moved.
The claim was not that the experience was out of date.
The claim was not that it was insufficiently high level.
The claim was not that the duration was short.
It was that, and I quote:
This is factually wrong. That is inarguable.
To base a premise on a factually wrong statement without even asking anyone if this statement could possibly be incorrect?
And then defending it?
You're digging yourself deeper.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
No. I just don't think a two-year military stint that included briefly holding an intelligence title 40 years ago consists of any sort of substantial experience in the field. I really don't. Hell, I was in the Boy Scouts for longer than that, and it was a heluva lot more recent than 40 years ago, too.
You can easily prove me wrong, by explaining what his accomplishments were while holding this position.
You're trying, desperately, to see something that isn't there.
Epic fail, indeed.
Last edited: