V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Turgid member
Joined
·
1,941 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm sorry I don't have a website I could have linked this to, because I received it in an email. This guy knows whereof he speaks.


Middle East Imperative
Jim Cash, Brigadier General, USAF, Ret.

I wrote recently about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this conflict in proper perspective.

Understand, the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger that just Iraq What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our kids and grandkids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond. Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century. They have been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can never be totally defeated. Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.

There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West. Two , Saudi Arabia and Pakistan , just need firm pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really going to support and commit to that support. That answer is simple. They both will support who they think will hang in there until the end, and win We are not sending very good signals in that direction right now, thanks to the Democrats.

The other six, Afghanistan , Iraq , Iran , Syria , North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift. Now, let's look more closely.

Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran. We have scared Gaddafi's pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear weapons, so I don't think Libya is now a threat.

North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran. Syria is like a frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger side. So where does that leave us? Sooner, or later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran, and it better be before they gain nuclear capability.

In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex located in Colorado Springs, Colorado for almost three years. My job there was to observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and assess if it was a threat to the US or Canada If any shot was threatening to either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only minutes to respond. I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day long, for months. They killed hundreds of thousand of their people. Know why? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply.

At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the west. Oil prices were fairly stable and we could not see an immediate threat. Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations. Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them. They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, they are convinced they will win, because the US is so divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 2008) have openly said we are pulling out.


Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran , which they will obviously do if we pull out? It is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. OIL WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THIS COUNTRY AT ANY PRICE.

I personally would vote for any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space program--declare a goal to bring this country to total energy independence in a decade.

Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the "good-old-days". The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.

One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war---if so, now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age. I urge you to read the book "END GAME" by two of our best Middle East experts, true American patriots and retired military generals, PaulVallely and Tom McInerney. They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so important, and how it can be won. Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers who served the country during the war on terror. You can find that book by going to the internet through Stand-up America at www.ospreyradio.us or www.rightalk.com.

On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use them as experts to back their anti-war claims.

You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war. If that is the case I should stop here, as that level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age. It is right up there with alien abductions and high altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails. I helped produced those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you we were not seeding the atmosphere. The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it deserves the consequences.

Enough-said!

Now, my last comments will get to the nerve.

They will be on politics. I am not a Republican. And, George Bush has made enough mistakes as President to insure my feelings about that for the rest of my life. However, the Democratic Party has moved so far left, they have made me support those farther to the right. I am a conservative who totally supports the Constitution of this country. The only difference between the United States and the South American, third world, dictator infested and ever-changing South American governments, is our US Constitution.

This Republic (note I did not say Democracy) is the longest standing the world has ever known, but it is vulnerable. It would take so little to change it through economic upheaval. There was a time when politicians could disagree, but still work together. We are past that time, and that is the initial step toward the downfall of our form of government.

I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time. The Republicans hated the Clinton's and now the Democrats hate Bush. So, both parties are putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance to include lying and always taking the opposite stand just for the sake of being opposed. JUST HOW GOOD IS THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY?

In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush, I have a pretty good feel for which party supported our military, and what military life was like under each of their terms. And, let me assure you that times were best under the Republicans.

Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating for all branches of the military. And, Ronald Regan was truly a salvation. You can choose to listen to enriched newscasters, and foolish people like John Murtha (he is no war hero), Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Jane Fonda , Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on-and-on, to include the true fools in Hollywood if you like. If you do, your conclusions will be totally wrong.

The reason that I write, appear on radio talk shows, and do everything I can to denounce those people is simple. THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR THIRST FOR POLITICAL POWER AND QUEST FOR VICTORY IN 2008 ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY.

I cannot abide that. Pelosi clearly defied the Logan Act by going to Syria, which should have lead to her imprisonment for three years and a heavy fine. Jane Fonda did more to prolong the Vietnam War longer than any other human being (as acknowledged by Ho Chi Minh in his writing before he died). She truly should have been indicted for treason, along with her radical husband, Tom Hayden, and forced to pay the consequences.

This country has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is another indication of a Republic about to fall. All Democrats, along with the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a total defeat in the Middle East, which will finally give Iran total dominance in the region. A lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that dooms this Republic.

However, if we refuse to let this happen and really get serious about an energy self-sufficiency program, this can be avoided. I am afraid, however, that we are going in the opposite direction. If we elect Hillary Clinton and a Democrat controlled congress, and they carry through with allowing Iran to take control of the Middle East, continue to refuse development of nuclear energy, refuse to allow drilling for new oil, and continue to do nothing but oppose everything Bush, it will be over in terms of what we view as the good life in the USA.

Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American -- of course not. They just do not understand the importance of total victory in that region.

Another failure of George Bush is his inability to explain to the American people why we are there, and why we MUST win. By the way, it is not a war. The war was won four years ago. It is martial law that is under attack by Iranian and Syrian outside influences, and there is a difference.

So, what do I believe? What is the bottom line? I will simply say that the Democratic Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry, anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime. Our educational system is partially to blame for allowing the mass of America to be taken in by this group. George Bush has done the best he can with the disabilities that he possesses.

A President must communicate with the people. And, I would tell you that Desert Storm spoiled the people. Bush Senior's 100-hour war convinced the people that technology has progressed to the point that wars could be fought with no casualties and won in very short periods of time. I remember feeling at the time, that this was a tragedy for the US military. To win wars, you must put boots on the ground. When you put boots on the ground, soldiers are going to die. A President must make the war decision wisely, and insure that the cause is right before using his last political option.

However, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL-BENT ON DEPENDING ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.

Jimmy L. Cash, Brigadier General, USAF, Ret.
Lakeside, Montana 59922


"I'll tell you what war is all about, you've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting."
General Curtis LeMay, USAF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,069 Posts
rgraham said:
I wrote recently about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this conflict in proper perspective.

Understand, the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger that just Iraq What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our kids and grandkids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond. Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century. They have been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can never be totally defeated. Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.
rgraham said:
Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American -- of course not. They just do not understand the importance of total victory in that region.
Did the writer of that propaganda just contradict himself? :unsure:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,069 Posts
dtroll said:
Think he is talking about worldwide versus a region?
I don't know what he's talking about. I can tell you what I think though. He's a die hard Republican. Bush is so stupid he is no longer going to even make an attempt to defend him. Instead he will try and convince whoever he can that electing any Democrat is the worse possible thing they could ever do.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,609 Posts
Smokey said:
I don't know what he's talking about. I can tell you what I think though. He's a die hard Republican. Bush is so stupid he is no longer going to even make an attempt to defend him. Instead he will try and convince whoever he can that electing any Democrat is the worse possible thing they could ever do.
I agree. While saying he is just conservative he is bashing the whole leadership of the democratic party.

I think in the two quotes you referenced it is probably more idealogical versus controlling a region.

He is right I think about one thing and that is we are there because of the oil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Great post. He thinks like a man should.
Now watch some liberal left wing junkie jump on and try to disparge these words of wisdom.
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
Smokey said:
I don't know what he's talking about. I can tell you what I think though. He's a die hard Republican. Bush is so stupid he is no longer going to even make an attempt to defend him. Instead he will try and convince whoever he can that electing any Democrat is the worse possible thing they could ever do.
But I thought you said the only smart thing Bush has done is invade Iraq. :unsure:

Smokey said:
Well then, you don't know why I think the dick is a moron. I think invading Iraq and taking out Saddam is just about the only thing he did right. He screwed up the follow up and seems to have given up on finding Osama. His domestic policies suck ass.
So why don't you like this guy? He isn't really discussing domestic policies as much as he is foreign policy. By the way, the guy didn't praise Bush.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,820 Posts
check the web

Check the web for the contents of the lead posting in this thread. The General and his commentary appears on a lot of sites. You can draw your own conclusion on his political stance by receiving some of those sites.


You do not have to be a scholar to be able to determine the political positions a person has who gets cited or quoted in lots of web sites. All you need do is examine the sites themselves to make the determination. If a site is extremely conservative the persons getting quoted is most likely extremely conservative. If the site is extremely liberal the person is most likely very liberal. IN the case of the General I'll say the sites he gets quoted and published on all seem to have some common ground. Check it out and decide for yourselves where the man stands.
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
Who cares where he stands? He has an opinion and beliefs-- no different than anyone else on here. Really, it should come as no surprise that a member of the military leans to the right. That's nothing new.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,609 Posts
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

BRIGADIER GENERAL JIMMY L. CASH

Retired June l' 1991.

Brigadier General Jimmy L. Cash is vice commander, 7th Air Force, Osan Air Base, South Korea.

General Cash was born in DeKalb, Texas, in 1939, and graduated from DeKalb High School in 1958. He earned a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering from Texas A&M University in 1962 and a master of science degree in systems management from the University of Southern California in 1970. He completed Squadron Officer School in 1968, Armed Forces Staff College in 1975, Industrial College of the Armed Forces in 1976 and the Air War College in 1983.

In September 1962 he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Air Force through the Reserve Officer Training Corps program at Texas A&M. General Cash completed pilot training at Laredo Air Force Base, Texas, and received pilot wings in May 1965. After completing F-102 and F-106 training, he was assigned to the 456th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Castle Air Force Base, Calif., for one year. He then transitioned to the F-4C as an aircraft commander. In September 1967 he was assigned to the 12th Tactical Fighter Wing, Cam Rahn Bay Air Base, Republic of Vietnam. The general transferred to South Korea in February 1968 and was first at Kunsan Air Base, then Taegu Air Base, as an operational F-4 pilot. In September 1968 he was assigned to the 35th Tactical Fighter Wing at George Air Force Base, Calif., as an F-4 instructor pilot. In June 1972 he was assigned to the U.S. Air Force Academy as air officer commanding Cadet Squadron 18.

General Cash entered the Armed Forces Staff College in January 1975 and upon completion was assigned to the 51st Composite Wing, Osan Air Base, in September 1975. He served as an F-4E flight commander and, later, as chief of the Standardization and Evaluation Division. He was assigned to the 1st Tactical Fighter Wing, Langley Air Force Base, Va., as chief of the langley Consolidated Command Post in September 1976. In March 1978 he transferred to the 27th Tactical Fighter Squadron for F-15 checkout and in June became operations officer of the 71st Tactical Fighter Squadron. In April 1979 he assumed command of the 94th Tactical Fighter Squadron, "Hat-in-the-Ring." He was assigned as chief of the Operations Training Division with the inspector general team, Headquarters Tactical Air Command, Langley, in March 1981. The general was assigned as deputy commander for operations, 56th Tactical Training Wing, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., in July 1983. He was wing vice commander from June 1984 to August 1984, when he assumed command of the 56th Tactical Training Wing. In February 1986 the general became deputy chief of staff for operations, Headquarters 9th Air Force, Shaw Air Force Base, S.C. He became command director, North American Aerospace Defense Command combat operations staff, Cheyenne Mountain Complex,Colo., in February 1987. He assumed his present position in September 1989.

The general is a command pilot with 4,000 flying hours. His military awards and decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross with oak leaf cluster, Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters, Air Medal with fIVe oak leaf clusters, Air Force Commendation Medal and Vietnam Service Medal.

He was promoted to brigadier general July l' 1988, with same date of rank.

(Current as of July 1990)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,069 Posts
HiAngle said:
But I thought you said the only smart thing Bush has done is invade Iraq. :unsure:

I still stand by that. Bush is still a moron though.



So why don't you like this guy? He isn't really discussing domestic policies as much as he is foreign policy. By the way, the guy didn't praise Bush.
I didn't say whether I liked this guy or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,069 Posts
HiAngle said:
Who cares where he stands? He has an opinion and beliefs-- no different than anyone else on here. Really, it should come as no surprise that a member of the military leans to the right. That's nothing new.
It's a shame that the majority of the military thinks Bush is screwing up in Iraq. More General's opposing what Bush has done in Iraq has come forward than those supporting him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
Smokey said:
It's a shame that the majority of the military thinks Bush is screwing up in Iraq. More General's opposing what Bush has done in Iraq has come forward than those supporting him.
I posted the election results from '04 a couple of weeks ago that showed Bush did much better with the military than Kerry. As to whether that will change in '08, we'll see, but I have my doubts that either Hillary or Barak is going do any better than Kerry did, regardless of which republican is the candidate. Do you really think they will?

Although there are plenty of critics of the way the war has been waged in Iraq by Bush, that is a far cry from endorsing surrender like Harry and Nancy. Example is McCain who objected from the start with the reduced force size approach, but still supports the engagement. I had doubts from day one, not in what was being done, but the way they did it. I had read Norman Schwarzkopf and Powell's theory of overhwhelming force and it seemed that Rumsfeld was ignoring that theory. But that doesn't mean I objected to the reason for being there.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,245 Posts
I know many of you look to me for guidance but I have no solution to the current mess. I'm not sure a rational solution even exists. All I have been doing is complaining about the last 6 years. It's really depressing for me. We are all fu*king screwed as are our grandchildren. You will notice that the General did not state a solution, just the problem. That is all any of us can do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
Fred1369 said:
I know many of you look to me for guidance but I have no solution to the current mess. I'm not sure a rational solution even exists. All I have been doing is complaining about the last 6 years. It's really depressing for me. We are all fu*king screwed as are our grandchildren. You will notice that the General did not state a solution, just the problem. That is all any of us can do.
Didn't state the solution? Of course he did. You fight the enemy where he lives until he's dead. Period. As HiAngle said, the Military went to war, but America didn't. I fear by the time America decides to go to war, it will already be lost.
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
DJW said:
I posted the election results from '04 a couple of weeks ago that showed Bush did much better with the military than Kerry. As to whether that will change in '08, we'll see, but I have my doubts that either Hillary or Barak is going do any better than Kerry did, regardless of which republican is the candidate. Do you really think they will?
I doubt it will change, especially considering Hillary is likely to be the change. Like it or not, the Republican party has the advantage when it comes to national security and military matters. I do think that is changing but not soon enough for Hillary to capitalize on it in the general election.

What I do find interesting is the number of combat vets that ran for office under the democratic ticket.




DJW said:
Although there are plenty of critics of the way the war has been waged in Iraq by Bush, that is a far cry from endorsing surrender like Harry and Nancy. Example is McCain who objected from the start with the reduced force size approach, but still supports the engagement. I had doubts from day one, not in what was being done, but the way they did it. I had read Norman Schwarzkopf and Powell's theory of overhwhelming force and it seemed that Rumsfeld was ignoring that theory. But that doesn't mean I objected to the reason for being there.
Rumsfeld was in love with special operations units and in love with the notion of small, lethal formations kicking the enemy's butt. All of that's ok when you're looking at tactical engagements, but that force size was incapable of handling the mess they found.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,245 Posts
DJW said:
Didn't state the solution? Of course he did. You fight the enemy where he lives until he's dead. Period. As HiAngle said, the Military went to war, but America didn't. I fear by the time America decides to go to war, it will already be lost.
what happens when our war against terrorism requires us to have a large presence in several mid-eastern countries?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
575 Posts
Fred1369 said:
what happens when our war against terrorism requires us to have a large presence in several mid-eastern countries?
Then that is what we do. Duhhhh. But don't dispare. The insurgents are supported by Iran. They are still a rag-tag bunch of poorly trained (ask and Mideast vet if they can shoot) bunch of fanatics. They focus on us in Iraq because that's where we are. If we go into multiple countries, they will be spread thinner, and so will Iran's support. Too many people pose what-if questions as though we don't have the ability to produce the answers. We do. We just don't have the support of the liberal left who still think we can somehow regain our world standing by tucking our tail between our legs and running. The general speaks like a real hero; a man's man who is not afraid to face our enemies no matter where they are or how many they are; a real American. The namby pamby left leaning pinko commy cowards who call themselves Democrats need to listen closely to him.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top