Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/29/iraq.intel/Sleeker said:
Look at the dates. The report was finished in October, 2003. When did we invade? March, 2003. Like I said, we didn't predict such a resilient insurgency, and maybe I should clarify, before we invaded.
That's better.nvxplorer said:
No, I'm merely countering your claim, "We had little idea that such an insurgency would become so involved in Iraq."Sleeker said:But you're assuming that all pre-war assessments said the insurgency would be this bad.
I guess you're right. However, I'll still argue that few people actually expected the insurgency to be this bad. I'll concede that people did believe it a possibility, but not a likely one.nvxplorer said:No, I'm merely countering your claim, "We had little idea that such an insurgency would become so involved in Iraq."
Sleeker said:
Look at the dates. The report was finished in October, 2003. When did we invade? March, 2003. Like I said, we didn't predict such a resilient insurgency, and maybe I should clarify, before we invaded.
You mean this one. Given the long and violent history of Iraqi secterian struggles, the only people who would figure it not a likely scenario when be the one's who removes the Government infrustructure, creates as power vaccum, and who thought we would be greeted with chocolates and flowers strown at our feet. The problem with ideologues is they don't consider history when it comes to struggles, be it Iraqs, or ours in light of Vietnam and because of that are prone to do the same things over again, and yet expect different results.Sleeker said:I guess you're right. However, I'll still argue that few people actually expected the insurgency to be this bad. I'll concede that people did believe it a possibility, but not a likely one.
Well there you go. That's why we are in the quagmire we are in. In this admin, the average Government officials duty is one of loyalty and compliance, rather than considering and imparting reality. Moreover, there are huge similarities to Vietnam and Iraq.Sleeker said:I don't doubt that they believed an insurgency would be mounted, but rather, I think that the average person in the government thought it would be much weaker.
Vietnam and Iraq are totally different though.
Sleeker said:
Look at the dates. The report was finished in October, 2003. When did we invade? March, 2003. Like I said, we didn't predict such a resilient insurgency, and maybe I should clarify, before we invaded.
Neverstop said:I imagine it is the year 2035...there will still be Fox News Breaking Stories claiming the WMDs have been found.
64kSim said:Well you know what the US federal government should really have a better system of tracking the chemical weapons that we give to countries like Iraq. I mean I can be so frustration when CIA employees run off with them. Perhaps if the worlds largest manufacturer of chemical and biological weapons, the United States, would just not give them away to people we might be a little better off.
Neverstop said:I imagine it is the year 2035...there will still be Fox News Breaking Stories claiming the WMDs have been found.
jmverville said:Which would be entirely appropriate.
It is always pertinent to bring up news of past conflicts, especially if it shows more information on what was happening in the first place.
Why is this supposed to be a witty statement that people slap you on the back for? Sounds more like a statement of fact that will probably come true.
Sleeker said:That's better.
But you're assuming that all pre-war assessments said the insurgency would be this bad. There are so many variables that are mentioned in the post before mine that predicting the strength of it are next to impossible. It's basically just lucky and unlucky guesses.
jmverville said:That is agree'd but the 1980s were a different time period when we were jockeying for position with the Soviets, and trying to play a larger role in most reasons.
The only way we could have very immediate and direct effects on many of these nations was distribution of these goods.
It is not as if this was done entirely reasonlessly.
But to b respectful, I do see your point and in the future this behavior will be entirely unacceptable.
That's what we get for not having a pessimistic government. We should've hoped for the best and prepared for the worst. What we did was slightly different. We hoped for the best and prepared for the slightly-to-moderately bad.Doctrine1st said:Well there you go. That's why we are in the quagmire we are in. In this admin, the average Government officials duty is one of loyalty and compliance, rather than considering and imparting reality.
Nope.Moreover, there are huge similarities to Vietnam and Iraq.
Baseless speculation.The Bush admin knew exactly what would happen which is one reason for the "shock and awe" campaign. Think about it...had we simply removed Saddam and created little violence it would be damn hard justifying permanent bases in Iraq. This drawn out War will justify US permanent presence in Iraq, at least to those who are apathetic.
I have a policy of disbelieving personal stories. Nothing against you as an individual, but I can't verify your sources or information.Among all of my acquaintances and friends who specialize in the Middle East, academics, military members, and businessmen, all of them knew there would be civil war and insurgency. Anyone even remotely familiar with the region could have predicted this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?