H02240
Headlines : InternationalIs The U.S. Vulnerable In The Persian Gulf?
We see that the 2002 US war games afforded a glimpse of the same military hubris that gave us the Viet Nam War and the current quagmire in Iraq. The difference is that the peril for the world today in the “Persian Lake” is many times greater than it ever was in the Gulf of Tonkin.
[Posted By ShiftShapers]Republished from Information Clearing House
During the summer of 2002, in the run-up to President Bush’s invasion of Iraq, the US military staged the most elaborate and expensive war games ever conceived. Operation Millennium Challenge, as it was called, cost some $250 million, and required two years of planning. The mock war was not aimed at Iraq, at least, not overtly. But it was set in the Persian Gulf, and simulated a conflict with a hypothetical rogue state. The “war” involved heavy use of computers, and was also played out in the field by 13,500 US troops, at 17 different locations and 9 live-force training sites. All of the services participated under a single joint command, known as JOINTFOR. The US forces were designated as “Force Blue,” and the enemy as OPFOR, or “Force Red.” The “war” lasted three weeks and ended with the overthrow of the dictatorial regime on August 15.
At any rate, that was the official outcome. What actually happened was quite different, and ought to serve up a warning about the grave peril the world will face if the US should become embroiled in a widening conflict in the region.
As the war games were about to commence on July 18 2002, Gen.
Posted by ShiftShapers
Warning: Anyone who takes this blog seriously will be shot. Anyone who does not take it seriously will be buried alive by a Mitsubishi bulldozer. Welcome to (A)utonomous Resistance, GNN’s exclusive one-stop infoshop for radical resources and information....
i’m just going to post another “told you so” regarding iranian military capability in relation to american. haha, told you so.
Copyright: Mark Gaffney. All rights reserved. You may republish under the following conditions: An active link to the original publication must be provided. You must not alter, edit or remove any text within the article, including this copyright notice.
The irony is that we are vulnerable by our own weapons technology, devices, schemes and strategies as well as all of the low-tech, high impact approaches used by those who wish to be a pain in the ass for the worlds most formidable superpower.
*An active link to the original publication must be provided*. You must not alter, edit or remove any text within the article, including this copyright notice.
SS that’s the second time you’ve been reminded to give credit where credit is due. If someone goes to all the bother of actually researching, and writing an article, it’s only ethical to link to the original source, plus a ‘via xxx.com’ statement denoting where YOU found it is only fair.
Now occasionally I myself forget, we’re only human after all, but it does actually request that you do so in the body of the article.
However may I say ‘good find’ for some reason I had it in my head that Van R was British.
after all what we are doing with headlines is merely ‘cut-‘n-paste’, (plus LOTs of re-editing to delete FUCKTILOSITIES inherent in the system). It’s not as if it’s actually our own work (as long as you don’t count the Fucktile).
SS that’s the second time you’ve been reminded to give credit where credit is due. If someone goes to all the bother of actually researching, and writing an article, it’s only ethical to link to the original source, plus a ‘via xxx.com’ statement cenoting where YOU found it is only fair.
It’s not his fault, when you submit it, GNN asks for the original URL. The system manages to ‘stolen’ that part of it when “republishing” it, even though they cite “fair use” policy.
Honestly I sometimes wonder if GNN and sites of the same type aren’t trying to attract legal attention to their users.
Also, I am King of the Jews
putting a link or two at the start of the body section is hardly rocket science