It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

disagree with a great many of you, but.......

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
The Afghanistan operation was a no-brainer.

The Iraq thing is a lot more complicated.

I think Bush figured that the only way to stop the islamo-fascists, regardless of their shifting aliances, was to democratize most of the Near- and Mid-East. I also think he figured that with a reasonabley democratized and westernized Iraq on one side and Turkey on the other, both Syria and Iran would change drastically as their people saw what they'd be missing.

That and forcing the Israelis to give up some of the land, in Bush's mind, would probably bring a lot of stability.

And it was and is a good idea. Bush said, of course, that he wasn't into "nation building" when, of course, he was; and he said he was looking for WMD when, of course, there weren't any; and he talked about an alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda when, of course, there was no such thing.

I think most people realized that there was no al-Qaeda - Saddam linkage and that Bush WAS nation-building, but they realized that he had to say that in order to get enough folks -- domestically and internationally -- on his side.

But most people, like me, bought into his WMD theory. For all I know, he did, too, but we'll never know.

But the question is now -- can he pull it off? The recent Iraqi elections certainly gave him a boost, and he can point to Libya quieting down, Saudi and Egypt (reluctantly) offering some mini-democratic reforms, and the Prague Spring in Lebanon. Of course, things can change, but the cards actually seem to be going his way for once.

If things keep going the way they have been for the last month or so (and no one knows if they will) then there is a fair-to-middling chance that much of the Mideast will quet down, with

o A more-or-less permanent peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians;

o A unified and Syria-less Lebanon;

o The Sunnis gradually being pulled back to the mainstream in Iraq;

o Increasingly urgent pressure by the University students on the Iranian Mullahs;

o Dr. Assad going back into the ophthalmologist business, if he survives a Syrian coup;

o Egypt and Saudi getting more democratic and gradually -- in the case of the Saudis -- dismantling their Wahhabi network.

If all this stuff, or even most of it, happens (and it's looking "guardedly optimistic"), then the whole war in Iraq will have been worth it, and the credit will go to the new "architect of Mideast freedom" (the spinmeisters will have a field day with this), and we could quite possibly see in three years (if we can get oil down below $40 a barrel) the second PhD, the first woman, and the first African-American in history as President of the United States.

On the other hand, the whole thing cold go to hell in a handbasket, too.




posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
If you really wanted to stop it the answer has to be
option d.

Small forces & specials ops to take out key players, create a war within fundamental islam (IRA / INLA anyone?) and turn them against themselves.

Issues with this strategy are though:

Not good TV

Not likely to be as profitable for Haliburton / KBR etc

Not much political PR value in it, by definition it's clandestine and 'body count' can't be used to show 'success'

Vietnam was the same - Phillip (?) Vann argued there was a lower cost / more effective solution but met complete resistance from the US military / corporate power base - less profit / budget / promotion etc ensured it was quashed as an idea.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
not to mention, you people would have had a field day with all the secrecy and "death squads" and all that.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   
You ask our opinion. We give it to you.

My response was an honest answer to your well-put question.

I, as requested, passed over the who, why of 11-9 etc, and gave a considered response to the question about the most effective method of neutralising Al Quida

Why, then, am I 'you people'?. This is a 'you people' board.

Why ask if it's responses from 'you people' you're going to get.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
You ask our opinion. We give it to you.

My response was an honest answer to your well-put question.

I, as requested, passed over the who, why of 11-9 etc, and gave a considered response to the question about the most effective method of neutralising Al Quida

Why, then, am I 'you people'?. This is a 'you people' board.

Why ask if it's responses from 'you people' you're going to get.



i was angry yesterday. but really, there would be such an outcry if the public ever found out about US death squads being used to target individuals across the globe, wouldn't you think? i don't apologize for using the "you people" title, i am just acknowledging the distinction between the 3 sides here. there are those that can be deemed right wing, for the most part, that believe what we are doing in the world is right and will be vindicated one day. there are those that believe it is a massive semi-imperialistic move or that it is a quest for global domination/annihilation or that there is a conspiracy of sorts afoot, who can usually be called left wing. and then there are those like me, who believe there is a little bit of both and a whole lotta grey area. people who think that some, or most of what is being done isn't necessarily right or good, but necessary. i don't apologize for the distinction, but i do apologize for getting off the topic a little.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Well, what would I do...I guess d.

First off, I would make a half-a$$ed attempt to stop Al Qaeda, then stop pursuing them at all. Hey, we put a lot of dough into that group, so I wouldn't take them all out; they would still be useful to me.

I would then fly all the Bin Ladens out of the country the day before 9/11. I would also have many govt officials warned not to go to NYC the day before. I would have my cronies set up war games the morning of 9/11. Then, I would sit there like an idiot and watch the plan, er, attack unfold while I thought of what to say next. Damn, that wasn't the question asked here...


What was it? Oh yeah, my response to terror. I guess I would have invaded Afghanistan and "magically" do what the Russians couldn't do for years in a fraction of the time. Almost forgot, this would all be under the premise that our boy, er, enemy Bin Laden was the architect of 9/11. Or was it Saddam, I forget...


Anyway, after taking down the Taliban and making sure the opium production conveniently skyrocketed after the invasion, I would naturally make up a lie and invade Iraq. I would have a lot of people killed and have a "successful" election there. Then, I would take Syria, Iran, and maybe a couple more countries before I'd have the nuts to take North Korea. All the while, I would ignore countries like Pakistan, China, etc.

Sounds like the Bush regime handled this one well.
After all, you can't do something that makes sense when it would defeat the purpose behind the reason you did all this...think about that one for a second.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

On the other hand, the whole thing cold go to hell in a handbasket, too.


If it can go wrong it, probably _ _ _ _




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join