Declassified NIE terrorism findings
- Thread starter Kerad
- Start date
Kerad
New Member
ylexot said:
Ohhh....gotcha. No, I didn't miss it, I may have just intrepeted it differently than you did.
When they said "democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations", I was thinking democratic reform efforts from within the countries themselves, initiated by their own citizens.
If "democratic reform efforts" refers to what's going on in Iraq right now...I'm thinking there's not alot of people out there thinking "Yeah...we want some of that!"
Kerad
New Member
ylexot said:
Ah...c'mon, Wiley...don't dissapoint me. Just when I was almost going to give you a little bit of credit for blindly stumbling into having some accidental independent thoughts. Ugh. Almost.
"Out there"...as in..other countries...maybe thinking of throwing off the shackles of hardcore Muslim rule. They ...maybe...just maybe.....may have made a move.
Then, looking at the "Accomplished Mission" that is the cluster**** that is the American Mission in Iraq (What is it called? Democratic Reform?)...might be thinkin'....
"Ummm....nope. don't need that death, destruction, and anarchy."
Mission Accomplished!
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
I really don't see the point in all this. Whatever reasons we went in in the first place are moot at this point. We went, we are there, and we have to stay there. Should we pull out and leave Iraq to defend for herself, we won't care if Iraq has nuclear weapons and a capable delivery system because Iraq will be a worse threat than before. At this point if we leave, Al Queda insurgents will force a civil war and will win because they are more brutal. Then you have a large terrorist organization with the funding of a soverign state with access to things like tanks, artillery, warships and aircraft. They won't need IED's and all the airport security in the world won't prevent them from shooting planes out of the sky.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Right there...
...is where there is an issue that is valid, I think, to both sides, in that it resonates and makes sense; the actual handling of the invasion. We DID depose Saddam and we DID render Iraq impotent as an exporter of WMD's. What then? What now?
One must, MUST attain and maintain a monopoly on the use of force or one has not won a military conflict. We, Bush, Rummy, the neocons, the US, we did not maintain that level of control over Iraq.
The Democrat who rises to this challenge renders ALL argument from the center and the right silent. "We were right to deal with Saddam. We, I, would have done it better."
This 'we were better off with Saddam in power' non-sense leaves the right pointing out all the obvious; the 12 years leading up to the war, the potentials of global terror with a proven bad actor in such a sensitive position, in short, the IWR argument; hadn't we ought do something sooner rather than later?
The cut and run left position also leaves the political middle screaming 'Well, if not what the right wants to do, then what?' and the left leaves it hanging obvious that they could not care less; just so long as it makes Bush look bad.
That is not acceptable policy to very many.
Kerad said:Then, looking at the "Accomplished Mission" that is the cluster**** that is the American Mission in Iraq (What is it called? Democratic Reform?)...might be thinkin'....
"Ummm....nope. don't need that death, destruction, and anarchy."
Mission Accomplished!
...is where there is an issue that is valid, I think, to both sides, in that it resonates and makes sense; the actual handling of the invasion. We DID depose Saddam and we DID render Iraq impotent as an exporter of WMD's. What then? What now?
One must, MUST attain and maintain a monopoly on the use of force or one has not won a military conflict. We, Bush, Rummy, the neocons, the US, we did not maintain that level of control over Iraq.
The Democrat who rises to this challenge renders ALL argument from the center and the right silent. "We were right to deal with Saddam. We, I, would have done it better."
This 'we were better off with Saddam in power' non-sense leaves the right pointing out all the obvious; the 12 years leading up to the war, the potentials of global terror with a proven bad actor in such a sensitive position, in short, the IWR argument; hadn't we ought do something sooner rather than later?
The cut and run left position also leaves the political middle screaming 'Well, if not what the right wants to do, then what?' and the left leaves it hanging obvious that they could not care less; just so long as it makes Bush look bad.
That is not acceptable policy to very many.
Kerad
New Member
I completely agree that what matters now is to find a way to succeed in Iraq, though what we will have to accept as "success" will probably be far from a good situation.
Everybody agress Sadam was an evil dictator, etc...and would have to have been dealt with eventually. However, it's obvious (to some of us) that he wasn't our most dangerous threat at the time...not our most pressing matter when it comes to our national security. The claim could even be made that removing him shifted the balance of power in that area of the world decisively to Iran's favor. I personally feel the secular dictatorship of a Saddam Hussein is easier to deal with than regimes controlled by radical, ultra-religious jihadists.
To me, the NIE is important in showing what many Americans have suspected for some time. The administration's continuous claims that we are "winning" the war on terror through our actions in Iraq are simply not true. It's obvious they take us for morons....the situation on the ground is far different then what they want us to believe. You can repeat a fallacy as many times as you like...but repitition does not make it true. You can't win a losing battle by pretending you're winning.
The Republicans run on the "'America is safer with us in charge" campaign of fear. The NIE shows that the policies (or the flawed implementation of those policies) of the current administration have made the world less secure....not more.
I'm off for the weekend....going to the Penn State game. Maybe you all can have this whole "Iraq" thing fixed up by the time I get back?
Everybody agress Sadam was an evil dictator, etc...and would have to have been dealt with eventually. However, it's obvious (to some of us) that he wasn't our most dangerous threat at the time...not our most pressing matter when it comes to our national security. The claim could even be made that removing him shifted the balance of power in that area of the world decisively to Iran's favor. I personally feel the secular dictatorship of a Saddam Hussein is easier to deal with than regimes controlled by radical, ultra-religious jihadists.
To me, the NIE is important in showing what many Americans have suspected for some time. The administration's continuous claims that we are "winning" the war on terror through our actions in Iraq are simply not true. It's obvious they take us for morons....the situation on the ground is far different then what they want us to believe. You can repeat a fallacy as many times as you like...but repitition does not make it true. You can't win a losing battle by pretending you're winning.
The Republicans run on the "'America is safer with us in charge" campaign of fear. The NIE shows that the policies (or the flawed implementation of those policies) of the current administration have made the world less secure....not more.
I'm off for the weekend....going to the Penn State game. Maybe you all can have this whole "Iraq" thing fixed up by the time I get back?
This whole post bears repeatingBustem' Down said:
Kerad said:
I keep hearing this, but given how averse Democrats are to seriously confronting our enemies and going to war - I think it's a load of crap. They weren't crazy about Afghanistan, even though NOW they think it was a good idea. They were VERY MUCH against us going into Kuwait, and now only complain that we didn't "finish the job" even though that would have put us square against our Arab allies - AND THE U.N. - something they're angry that we did, this time.
I'm convinced that had we engaged South Korea or Iran or Syria or anyone else - in a war - we'd be hearing "well what about Saddam? surely, HE'S a bigger threat" because the bottom line is, they don't want us to go to war at all. Which make the whole argument pointless. Kuwait convinced me - it doesn't matter how dire it is.
Kerad said:
Yeah, we learned a lot from that whole Shah of Iran and Noriega thing. Geez, for *years* this was the primary complaint of the whole world about the U.S. Now you want to *defend* it?
PsyOps
Pixelated
Most folks (that are paying attention) have already made up their minds how they feel about this war. So, based on your opinion of this war you can extrapolate any bit of information you want to support your belief. Aside from that, the NIE was considered classified. It got leaked for political reasons and we should all be concerned and, perhaps, angry about that.
I'm surprised we're not hearing more outrage about that. Valerie Plame gettting "outed" was headline news for months. But the leak of true classified information? Nada.PsyOps said:
I do not understand this.
PsyOps said:
This also bears repeating - this came out in APRIL. Can anyone guess why the most unfavorable part of a classified document came out six weeks before an election? If they could wait five months to leak it the NYT - why couldn't they wait until December?
And I'm sorry but even though it's not earth-shaking, it really ought to be treasonous to leak classified information regarding the war. If this had happened during WW2, does anyone doubt that heads would have rolled?