a review of how we were misled

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Sep 5, 2003.

  1. macrumors 601


    17 Mar 2002:

    26 Mar 2002:

    3 Sep 2002:

    24 Sep 2002:

    24 Sep 2002:

    28 Jan 2003 (state of the union):

    15 Apr 2003:

    1 May 2003:

    9 May 2003:

    9 July 2003:
  2. macrumors newbie

    I don't think I was misled. There's always a bit of truth in politicos' statements; most sins are those of omission, not commission. I sorta reviewed what the last dozen or so years have shown us, and thought that we were finally doing what should have been done long ago.

    I thought there were plenty of legitimate reasons for getting rid of Hussein; I thought it was foolish to harp on WMD as a means of getting public support. Sad, though, when you have to scare people into supporting what's right.

    Very few folks seem to have noticed that instead of trading 19 for 3,000 a la the WTC, we're trading one or two of our people for a lot of Saddamites and Al Qaida-type volunteers. And, we're doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of here in the U.S. We're going to lose people one way or the other, and this way strikes me as preferable. Sorry if that's too cold-blooded...

    As for comments on such things as the economy, lots of pols want to do good for the economy. "God, momma and apple pie" and all that. Trouble is, politicians can screw around with tax rates and interest rates, but Mr. Market has the actual say in the matter--and always has; always will.

    Just keep the saltshaker handy; remember pols want re-election over anything else, and you won't be misled--at least, not very often.

    :), 'Rat
  3. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    They're going to lie to us, but not very much, and for a good cause?

    D-rat, you've managed to do something I thought was impossible -- combine naivety and cynicism.
  4. macrumors member

    Every politician lies in one way or another.

    As for saying Bush is a liar, that isn't proven yet. "They haven't found WMD's yet" is not really an acceptable answer when there are many ways to hide them. Like digging a hole in the middle of the desert, putting the WMD's in, and filling it back up. I'm also not saying he's right, I'm saying we have no idea but it's much better to play on the safe side considering Saddam's history and hatred for America.
  5. macrumors 601


    i guess my tolerance is lower, then.
  6. macrumors member

    Then you should be angry at every politician :p

    But what has Bush mislead?

    Yellowgate? Bush acted on a British intelligence report which the British still believe to be true.

    The war being over? It is. Clean-up is what's left. Will there be deaths during the clean-up process? Yes. More than during in the actual combat? Probably considering American soldiers have the best equipment in the world and some of the best (if not the best) trained soldiers in the world going against one of the worst in the world.
  7. macrumors 68040


    So let me get this straight...
    You're saying better training/equipment = higher likelyhood of being killed?
  8. macrumors member

    More as in, we lose so few in the fighting, it's very easy to lose more to guerilla attacks which one can not defend against.
  9. macrumors 68040


    Espescially when those attacks increase in frequency and efficiency over time.
  10. macrumors 603


    which is true. in the gulf war, a huge part of the casualties were the result of terrorism (like bombing barracks) rather than field combat.
  11. macrumors member

    And that is also shortly before we kill them all off.
  12. macrumors 601


    i may be splitting hairs, but if an irregular army attacks a military, why wouldn't we call that guerilla warfare?
  13. macrumors member

    Because it's not an army, it's a very small group of fundamentalists, loyalists and such.

    This is not a large majority of the people like the media would like you to believe, this is just a large group like Pablo Escobar had in Columbia. It's just a matter of time before they are all dead.

    [EDIT: Misunderstood]

    It could have been done by people outside the army that were fundamentalists or loyalists.
  14. macrumors 68040


    What's your definition of "shortly"?
  15. macrumors 603


    do they? i've always thought terrorism was more hit-and-miss. the plans seem to often involve such different things. i mean, we certainly haven't seen anything bigger/more "efficient" than WTC since WTC.

    it's quite fortunate, in any event, that this country doesn't have a climate like vietnam...
  16. macrumors 68040


    I was speaking specifically about Iraq.
  17. macrumors 601


    what's the schedule? end of the year? who should we turn to for advice on killing all the terrorists? the turks on the kurds? israel on the palestinians? spain on the basques? russians on the chechnyans? brits on the IRA? china on the uiger separatists? india on the kashmir separatists? the phillippines on abu sayef? sri lanka on the tamil tigers? indonesia on the TNI?
  18. macrumors member

    Give or take, two years max. A few months minimum. The larger the resistance becomes, the easier they'll be to find and kill. The larger a military force becomes in Iraq (US or other) the harder it will be to escape. There are many variables, the only thing the army needs is time.

    Why do we need advice for killing terrorists? We have some of the best special forces in the world, terrorist organizations arcross the world are nothing compared to them.
  19. macrumors 601


    9. Not belonging to a permanent, organized military force: irregular troops.

  20. macrumors 603


    ah. it's a tough decision, to risk the lives of troops or give a country up to terrorists and oppression.
  21. macrumors 68040


    Ok, check back in two years and see if we've managed to kill all the terrorists by then.:rolleyes:

    You've got about as much chance of winning the war on terrorism through force as you do of winning the war on drugs through law enforcement.
  22. macrumors 601


    i can't emphasize enough how naive i find that statement.
  23. macrumors member

    Sadly, many people don't seem to understand the level of our special forces. Delta can likely handle this in two years. However, we know about Delta, which means they aren't our best.

    Terrorist organizations are literally nothing compared to how bad our special forces could be if they went down the path of terror.
  24. macrumors 68040


    Geez, even our own military admits it's not prepared to fight a guerilla insurgency. It's not a matter of our troops commitment or level of capability, but rather the asymmetrical nature of the fight that is the problem. We don't have the political will (thank god) to do the kind of violence to the general population to prevent them from supporting the insurgents, and we don't have the numbers of troops to pacify effectively.
  25. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Seems like all along I've misunderstood the president's MO in Iraq. Apparently it was to open up the country to Islamic terrorists from all over the world to fight the US occupation, and once they get there, to kill them.

    "Operation Moth to Flame." Why didn't I think of that before?

Share This Page