architects of Iraq war...dumb like foxes?

[Clint]

Suppose intelligence around the world indicates that terrorists around the world are focusing on Iraq.

Suppose they (terrorists) think they can destroy the will to fight terrorism by destroying the will of the coalition to fight.

Suppose the assessment of the present situation is that more terrorists are being killed in Iraq than could ever be hoped for if they had to be searched out.

Suppose the strategy all along, was to draw the bad guys to one point where they could be dealt with.

Could anyone with that knowledge tell us the plan without killing its ability to work?

Maybe the architects of this war are dumb like foxes?

We will never know until it is history.

[Tombstone]

Clint wrote: Suppose intelligence around the world indicates that terrorists around the world are focusing on Iraq.

Suppose they (terrorists) think they can destroy the will to fight terrorism by destroying the will of the coalition to fight.

Suppose the assessment of the present situation is that more terrorists are being killed in Iraq than could ever be hoped for if they had to be searched out.

Suppose the strategy all along, was to draw the bad guys to one point where they could be dealt with.

Could anyone with that knowledge tell us the plan without killing its ability to work?

Maybe the architects of this war are dumb like foxes?

We will never know until it is history.


Can't quibble with this! I think you are on to them.

[MicahLorain]

Are the citizens of Iraq in the plan to have their country destroyed by others wanting to draw foreign terrorists into battle?? I wonder how much the Iraqis would appreciate that?? Anyone have a list of innocent Iraqi dead as a result of this Masterplan?? Was that why our new recruits signed up???

[telaquapacky]

Your premise suggests to me the possibility that the administration may really have a good strategy for Iraq, but the need for secrecy puts them in a situation where they have to keep mum while taking all the criticism and enduring public accusations that they have no strategy.

This would certainly be something to hope for.

[MicahLorain]

Hang onto that optimism! We'll need it until a new reason we invaded pops up around Nov 06!

[Clint]

telaquapacky wrote: Your premise suggests to me the possibility that the administration may really have a good strategy for Iraq, but the need for secrecy puts them in a situation where they have to keep mum while taking all the criticism and enduring public accusations that they have no strategy.

This would certainly be something to hope for.


Yes. It is my hope, and not without good reason, that we are not as evil as some would like to makes us out to be. I keep looking for more than meets the eye because I'm sure there is more there.

[MicahLorain]

Far Rider wrote: Clint I have felt this was the plan all along. Draw them in, kill them, and at the same time force them to use what resources they have, while also revealing who funds them.

Crazy like a fox.

As far as where its taking place at, and the number of innocent Iraqis being killed, we will never know the total, because the insurgency has killed way more than we have.



I'm very interested to see what President Bush says later today.


According to the conspiracy theory that Bush meant for the last few years to happen, WE drew the insurgents to Iraq to have a war on terror. I can't recall the Iraqis voting for turning their country into a wrestling mat for foreign armies and terrorists. Can we beat a billion moslems?? I pray we can.

[telaquapacky]

Clint wrote: Yes. It is my hope, and not without good reason, that we are not as evil as some would like to makes us out to be. I keep looking for more than meets the eye because I'm sure there is more there.I don't think it's a matter of US being "evil." We are a mixture of well-meaning and self-serving. We don't know where what we are doing will ultimately lead. God knows, and He has purposes higher than ours. And I don't think it's a matter of whether we can "beat the Moslems." They are already self-defeated. We should be wary lest we become like them- meaning, a theocracy.

I confessed in another place that my opposition to the Iraq war was highly motivated by my disapproval of Bush on other issues, and I believe this is a factor in much of the opposition to the war. The fact is, now the war is ours. We own it. We'd better hope that the administration, whether we like them or not, have a plan that will end this thing better off than it started. As strongly as I was opposed to us getting into Iraq, I am equally opposed to us skedaddling out of there prematurely.

[Clint]

telaquapacky wrote: I don't think it's a matter of US being "evil." We are a mixture of well-meaning and self-serving. We don't know where what we are doing will ultimately lead. God knows, and He has purposes higher than ours. And I don't think it's a matter of whether we can "beat the Moslems." They are already self-defeated. We should be wary lest we become like them- meaning, a theocracy.

I confessed in another place that my opposition to the Iraq war was highly motivated by my disapproval of Bush on other issues, and I believe this is a factor in much of the opposition to the war. The fact is, now the war is ours. We own it. We'd better hope that the administration, whether we like them or not, have a plan that will end this thing better off than it started. As strongly as I was opposed to us getting into Iraq, I am equally opposed to us skedaddling out of there prematurely.
Nothing here for me to argue with. The President is George Bush and he is better, in my opinion, than the most obvious choice. We have to support him and as you say, we have to finish what has been started.

[capt_buzzard]

Who is funding the terrorists?

[Clint]

Far Rider wrote:

Damn shame.


It is indeed. Helping the enemy should be rewarded with being silenced in a jail cell...or worse.

[BTS]

TW2005 wrote: Needing to manipulate evidence to force the war on Iraq is a "damn shame" too.
Huh????????????



"Needing to manipulate evidence to force the war on Iraq is a "damn shame" too."



Please do show us ALL where the FREE world manipulated evidence? Or for that matter we manipulated (USA) evidence..........

I think we went on what everyone else saw as fact at the time.



I ask:

Who manipulated evidence and where?

[nvalleyvee]

Clint wrote: Suppose intelligence around the world indicates that terrorists around the world are focusing on Iraq.

Suppose they (terrorists) think they can destroy the will to fight terrorism by destroying the will of the coalition to fight.

Suppose the assessment of the present situation is that more terrorists are being killed in Iraq than could ever be hoped for if they had to be searched out.

Suppose the strategy all along, was to draw the bad guys to one point where they could be dealt with.

Could anyone with that knowledge tell us the plan without killing its ability to work?

Maybe the architects of this war are dumb like foxes?

We will never know until it is history.


"Suppose the strategy all along, was to draw the bad guys to one point where they could be dealt with."

I think you got the the point.

[gmc]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

Do you guys never read your own senate commission reports? I only ask cos as an authoritative source I would have thought it would have pretty good standing.

posted by capn buzzard

Who is funding the terrorists?




Don't mention the saudis.

posted by BTS

Huh????????????

"Needing to manipulate evidence to force the war on Iraq is a "damn shame" too."

Please do show us ALL where the FREE world manipulated evidence? Or for that matter we manipulated (USA) evidence..........

I think we went on what everyone else saw as fact at the time.

I ask:

Who manipulated evidence and where?


Well for a kick off Iraq had no connection to 911 so why do so many americans remains convinced he did?

Don't know about the US but only the most die hard new labour supporter doesn't think TB altered intelligence reports to persuade parliament to vote in favour of the war.

911 was seized upon as a reason to go in to Iraq the evidence was used to persuade the americn people it was justified, whether it was a good idea or not only time is going to tell

[Clint]

The Downing Street memo was indeed transcribed. As I understand it, it was transcribed from the original and the original was destroyed. There is no way to authenticate it

When I read something as politically one sided as TW2005 writes, I just have to discount it. There is a clear motive involved. The motive is to smear President Bush. The disdain and loathing for the President speaks very loudly. Some contrived “facts” are mixed in for drama. He won the election...get over it.

AM radio has a station called "Air America" that sounds exactly like what TW2005 writes. I know because I listen to both sides…when I listen.

[gmc]

posted by clint

The Downing Street memo was indeed transcribed. As I understand it, it was transcribed from the original and the original was destroyed. There is no way to authenticate it

When I read something as politically one sided as TW2005 writes, I just have to discount it. There is a clear motive involved. The motive is to smear President Bush. The disdain and loathing for the President speaks very loudly. Some contrived “facts” are mixed in for drama. He won the election...get over it.

AM radio has a station called "Air America" that sounds exactly like what TW2005 writes. I know because I listen to both sides…when I listen.


The memo is not that big an issue in the UK. Most people know that intelligence reports were amended to make the case stronger. Might have became does have and so forth.

One major difference is no one fell for the one about Iraq being connected to 911

http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/ ... 11,00.html

"[In his memoirs] the former BBC director general, Greg Dyke ... has revived the bitter battle that raged between the corporation and Downing Street over the coverage of the Iraq war ... In many respects, his recollections only underline the enormity of the political misjudgements that took Britain into such an unpopular war.

"Much in Mr Dyke's account still has the power to shock, not least the extent to which No 10 tried to intimidate the state broadcaster into altering the balance of its reporting. His disclosure of a personal letter from the prime minister criticising the BBC's Iraq coverage - a move which amounts to direct political interference in the BBC's prized independence - is a charge that Tony Blair needs to answer."


We have our own political crisis to worry about.

Terrorists are small groups of well organised individuals whose aim is to provoke a reaction. Anyone who thinks they will all collect in one place to be slaughtered is as big an idiot as they seem to think the terrorists are. Iraq is now a training ground in urban guerrilla warfare.

[Clint]

TW2005 wrote: This is just the reaction I was expecting from you. Anything that states the TRUTH you just discredit, and act like it was never there. You shrug it off and don't care what it says. You don't fully read and understand what is being said because it's not coming out of Bush's mouth in a manipulated form. If it doesn't agree with His and Your Ideology, it's a lie!

And as far as a motive: Your absolutely right. The motive is clear, but it's not to discount or smear Bush. The motive is to get to the TRUTH which he and this administration hides. Sorry you can't see it in your blurred vision, but the truth is being uncovered little by little. Sorry that, "You can't handle the Truth."
I am not an apologist for the President. I simply recognize that he is in office and that he is privy to a lot more information with which to make decisions than you are, or I am. I disliked President Clinton; however, I didn’t second guess his decisions as Commander-in-Chief while he was acting in that role.



Your assertions imply you have more information about the activities of terrorists and the operations of states that support them than the administration does. I find that to be absurd.

Define "truth". If we define it the same, maybe we can have a discussion.

[Clint]

TW2005 wrote: The fact we have a President that DID surround himself with those that would manipulate the reasons and evidence we are at WAR is disturbing and sounds alarm bells to Americans that want a straight answer from the so-called straight shooter we know as Bush. What else can a person do in the face of such deceit by our elected officials. And the idea the country's entire government is operated and led by HIS party, yet he STILL can't hit a nail on the head about something as serious as our two wars. The fact you see no problem with that is unsettling.

Truth: (trooth), n., pl. 1. the true or actual state of a matter. 2. conformity with fact or reality. 3. A verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle or the like.
"The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off." ”George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

If you valued truth as you defined it, you would put this in its proper context or lose it.

[Clint]

TW2005 wrote: He said it not me. The fact that it is not in it's "proper context" is not the issue. It's a Bushism, there are thousands more where this one came from that are better or worse. Are you straying from the real topic at hand?
That is why I won’t spend time discussing issues with you. Your definition of truth and mine are much different.

[Clint]

TW2005 wrote: What is your definition of Truth? My definition is what the Dictionary says. Do you not believe the Dictionary or just manipulate the definitions to fit your own ideology? Hmmm.....sounds familiar.
My definition matches the one you quoted from the dictionary. I cannot see how yours can be the same and still leave a misleading “quote” as your signature.

Now, I am afraid we have drifted from the thread. :-3

[Clint]

TW2005 wrote: Look Clint. Like I've said before, "it's just a Bushism." If I change it and put another one there will that make you happy? Who cares if it's not in the right context? Who cares if he was talking to Kerry when he said "he" in the Bushism? Honestly, it doesn't really matter. We all know that it is not meant to sound like it is stated. It's just a quote from his mouth. Like I asked before, do you want me to change it for you? If thats the only thing holding you back from having a conversation, I think it's sad. But I'll change it just for you.
Changing it for me proves nothing. If you change it, change it for yourself. If you stand by it…then stand by it. At least be honest with yourself.

[MicahLorain]

Bush isnt a great communicator. he seems scripted and cavaleer. ivoted for the man (Look at the alternative!!!) but i think the republicans could have done better. mcain and Gulianni come to mind. The chances this admin. crafted acovert plan to use IRaq as a battleground against world trrorism is ludicrous at best. The brains aren't there and thankfuly so! that would be a treasin agaist the people of USA. And it would make nixon look like justa shoplifter! Dream on conspiracy theorists!

[MicahLorain]

I doubt verymuch that tw2005 could do any beter as pesident. just another WHINER with no ansers. are you a supporter of Sadam??

[Clint]

Context really is the issue isn’t it. The folks that are so sure the war in Iraq is misplaced and at the wrong time have trouble with putting things into context. They take snippets here and there and put them all together, expecting them to portray an accurate representation of the truth. When they are met with opposition to their hypothesis they scrape for more snippets and try shore up the original fabrication.

TW2005, show me evidence that your intelligence on Iraq is better than the Administration's.

BTW, exchanging one out of context signature line with another out of context signature line isn’t even clever.

[MicahLorain]

though not a fan of mike moore or his movie i have to agree tw has made a case, as have many about the reckless move to war against the wrong country. surely was easier than taking on pakistan but that is where MILLIONS of terror lovers live, and they are nuclear. there scientist that brought nukesb to islam,khan, sold the technology to the highest bidders in iran and loose cannons acting independently in russia and the caucusus. americans have every right to question the decisions made by hawks in washington. lets get out of iraq and invade pakistan. musharraff is powerless. his country is brimming with osamas and we are going broke in little iraq.

[Clint]

TW2005 wrote: Clint you just don't get it. Go back an reread my long post on page 2 of this thread. This document contained meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. Which Bush was at. How do you possibly know that the text from the DSM I have posted on page 2 of this thread is not from the actual DSM? Where is your intelligence on that? If anything, the text I have posted is in summary of the actual DSM. If all the information in the DSM in not true, where are the LAW SUITS? Just like in the Movie Fahrenheit 9/11, I don't know if you ever saw that movie or not, but if all the information in the movie, which is based on evidence Bush had in making the decision to go to war, why are there no law suits against him? The movie exploits Bush and his administration, uncovers and displays some of the evidence Bush had and proves it to be manipulated and false. Why has Bush not answered the questions the AMERICAN people want to know? He has never given a straight foreward YES or NO. If the evidence he used to manipulate us was in fact the TRUTH, why can't he give a straight foreward answer?

All of us on here know that I don't have the evidence that this Administration had to make the decision to go to war. Thats a given. I think Bush's silence on the issues is the biggest piece of evidence against him right now in determining if the evidence he used was manipulated or false. If the evidence was not manipulated or false, why not tell the American people that?





Because the Bush administration believes that if the topic is just avoided, it will go away.



That's the only popular division that matters in the United States today: Those who want to determine once and for all if President Bush knowingly ''fixed the facts'' regarding Iraq, thereby misleading Congress and the American people into supporting an unnecessary war, and those who will cover their ears and hum loudly in order to maintain their belief that Bush and his advisors remain above reproach.


You say the DSM is true but you can’t prove it. It was copied and the original was destroyed but you are so possessed with the need to find some evidence that you grab for it like a drowning man grabs for a floating straw. You ask me how I know it isn’t true. I ask you how you know it is true. You are the one making these serious charges. You should be the one providing the proof.

You are charging the President with all of these terrible things. Here in the U.S. the burden of proof is on the one making the charges. You keep insisting the President defend himself when all you can present is rumor and innuendo. Can you imagine how little the President of the United States would get done if he dropped everything to answer all the charges people drum up against him. He simply can’t get caught up in that. You could be a squeaky clean President and look dirty in short order by going on the defensive like that. The President’s detractors know that if they can get him to start defending himself against all of these so called charges, he will be known for the things he was charged with rather than the things he accomplished.

Again, the burden of proof is on you and those who feel the way you do. All I’ve heard has been innuendo and rumors.

Michael Moore has been proven to be a manipulator. For crying out loud, he’s a movie maker. He can make thing look anyway he wants to. More than one objective look at what he did proves he doesn’t know how to separate truth from fantasy or entertainment from documentation. You need to seek your information in the world of reality.

I hope you all keep this stuff up. Remember the little boy who cried wolf?

[gmc]

posted by far rider

The fact remains that securing Iraq, destoying Saddam and his baath party has drawn in many would be terrorists. Its a killing zone and it is decreasing the lieklyhood of another US attack.

Why can't people see that? It is happening today, now as we speak. The decision to attack Iraq IS the strategy that is working.

Wether you agree with the reason to go into Iraq or not, the fact is doing so has made us safer.

It has decreased the terrorists ability to make war against us.


Believe it or not I hope you are right but I doubt very much you are.

Terrorists aim by their actions to get an ectreme reaction from those they are attacking. They are small groups usually without mass support and you can't defeat them with conventional armies.

After 911 you had the support and sympathy of most of the world but instead of attacking the terrorists you came roaring down off the moral high ground and went after a country that had no connection to them-don't believe me then read your own 911 commission reports. The WMD story was a red herring used to get support. Alqueda could not have asked for a better response if they had asked for it.

The DSM is not a big story in the UK because it has been well established that the wording of intelligence reports was altered to help make the case for war-very few if any now dispute that. It is also quite clear that going in to Iraqas very much on the agenda of Dick Cheney and others. Don't be fooled by the vagaries of our electoral system TB had 64% of the electorate vote against him. Labour lost seats the opposition didn't win them.

You tell all potential allies to get stuffed and go your own way and then wonder why no one will give you any help now when it is beginning to dawn on you that you can't cope and you have got yourself in to another vietnam that looks like dragging on for years unless you just pull out and leave them to it. The longer it takes to leave the more painful it is going to be.

Iraq is a training ground, for would be terrorists, in urban warfare, they don't need to fight pitched battles all they need to do is keep spreading fear of attack and learn how to run rings round conventional forces.

It's very easy for terrorists to disrupt normal life in a big modern city, all it takes is a few random car bombs and let panic take it''s course

If you want to keep the moral high ground you don't arrest people and hold them without trial where your own civil rights lawyers can't intervene and announce that the geneva conventions only apply where you decide it does. You don't torture and humiliate prisoners in abu graib and use as a defence to those who think it wrong that compared to saddam you are the good guys. that doesn't make it right. If you can't see what is wrong with that defence there is no point pretending to be the good guys.

If you behave aggressively towards others then they start responding in kind, threatening Iran won't work as all it does is strenghten the hand of the hardliners and set back any chance those who would reform might have as people gather behind a perceived external threat. Telling america to get stuffed becimes a good election ploy. My country right or wrong is not just an american attitude you finf it evrywhere. Usually in a democracy common sense keeps it at bay. Advocating pre-emptive warfare and acting on it ensures that very country in the middle east worried they might be next is getting ready for war. Do you really think Syria hasn't made plane on how to deal with an attack or Iran as well.

It seems in the US there is little political debate as anyone critical of the administration gets accused of being unpatriotic and supporting terrorists to the extent very few seem able to speak out for fear of being shouted down.

Anything at all that might be taken as being against your own point of view is sneered at and discredited without even a dispassionate investigation to see if what is being said might be true.

Bush and co believe in what they are doing and just ignore any evidence that goes against their world view. the only good thing about it is that Bush can't stand again though if you see it being suggested that that rule be changed maybe you should really start to worry.

You think other nations, especially european ones are not as patriotic as yours because we don't go in for the flag waving overt displays you do, big mistake we associate that kind of blind patriotism with nazism and while you may think it cool to export your military muscle around the world just because you can america needs to seriously think about how far they want this to go. No I'm not calling you a bunch of Nazis but extreme nationalism and my country right or wrong type attitiudes lead to warfare. Militarism has only ever had one end. How many wars do you want to fight and what exectly are you getting out of it? Can your economy stand up to it bearing in mind that warfare is a good way impoverish the most powerful nations on the planet. All china has to do is sit and wait until you are bankrupt so will, Russia.

posted by micah lorain

though not a fan of mike moore or his movie i have to agree tw has made a case, as have many about the reckless move to war against the wrong country. surely was easier than taking on pakistan but that is where MILLIONS of terror lovers live, and they are nuclear. there scientist that brought nukesb to islam,khan, sold the technology to the highest bidders in iran and loose cannons acting independently in russia and the caucusus. americans have every right to question the decisions made by hawks in washington. lets get out of iraq and invade pakistan. musharraff is powerless. his country is brimming with osamas and we are going broke in little iraq.


Don't forget India, they too have nuclear weapons but to defend themselves against pakistan. maybe you should support democrcies like india against their islamic neighbours instead of just selling the most up to date weapons to pakistan supply india as well since they are the most likely target of said weapons

[gmc]

posted by far rider

I'll refrain from comment.


Why, because I disagree with you and you think opposing opinions should be suppressed, or because you think I might have a valid point? I happen to live in a country where political debate, and impassioned debate at that, amongst opposing parties is the norm, I have the impression that america seems to be split between two camps that just shout abuse at each other. Although I will concede that watching cnn and cbs and trawling through michael moore pnac and various newspaper sites probably does not give a very clear picture.

It's only now that using Iraq to draw in terrorists is appearing as a suggested tactic. If you really think some pitched battle is going to stop this you're kidding yourself.

Sooner or later the insurgents will be sitting at a negotiating table with those they are busy blowing up hopefully before there is full scale civil war in Iraq. The only way to win militarily is to become an occupying army and eventually you will leave. The only ones that can sort out Iraq is the iraquis themselves. Maybe partition the country between the two religious groups.

[gmc]

posted by far rider

I dont have to comment on anything I dont want to, when I do comment about war stuff I usually I regret what I say.


Fair enough. One of the things I appreciate about this forum is the opportunity to discourse with people who have different opinions and perspectives from myself especially when they can express themselves beyond petty insults. I posted what I did because I valued your opinion no other reason. It was inetnded to provoke debate.

posted by far rider

I didnt suppress your opinion in any way, you posted it and I read it. I did not try to stop you from posting or change what you wrote.


Don't know why you would change what I wrote, certainly if somebody did it would be the last time I looked at this forum. Having said that if I was being obscene or deliberately offensive I suppose the moderators would have to take action.

posted by far rider

Negotiation, will happen, when we elect a weak president, that I believe is inevitable. When that happens we will loose ground and another attack will occur.

My humble opinion is to bring it to them wherever they can be found and destoy them. I don't care which political or geographical lines we have to cross to get them all. When we stop fighting they regroup, my job as a soldier was to never let the enemy have a chance to breath, resupply or even think.


I think Al queda was a fringe element that perpetrated a terrorist act. Terrorist operate in small groups going after them mob handed garners support for them. It was primarily an intelligence war.

If you look what happened in Northern Ireland, the IRA were dying out until the British went in with troops to loyalist areas and antagonised thoroughly those that would have kept the protest peaceful and sparked off riots in protest. It's the same in iraq IMO the lomger it goes on the more vio,ent it will get.

[gmc]

posted by far rider

So there's my opinion, I'll leave it this time. And I apologize for being so short. And I will try to be reasonable in my replies.


There's nothing wrong with your replies, unreasonable is "go forth and multiply you are an idiot", which only occasionally happens on this forum. I'm not an idiot so it doesn't bother me anyway.

I have no problem with the military ours are superb and the americans are almost as good. I'm not too impressed by the politicians-yours or mine.

We've had plenty of terrorist attacks in the past, even had an assassination attempt on a prime minister (Mrs Thatcher), cabinet ministers blown up but at no time have we ever had it suggested that we need ID cards and home secreataries given the right to hold suspects without trial or take away the right to jury trials yet all of that is now on the table. If the B(*&&S get away with it we will have taken a turn down the road to an authoritarian style of government.

posted by scrat

This war is about 3 things.

Money.

Power.

Empire.

As for history, well we know how it ends.


Money yes, power yes, but empire? who is the emperor?

[Jives]

War is only about one thing...waste.