[subego]

I've been trying to think of the things Bush could have done to have averted the more disastrous results in Iraq, and one of the thoughts I had (as preposterous as this may seem) was for Bush to have had a few spies in the Pentagon. They could have told him about the gripes the generals had with the overall plan (too few troops), and how Rumsfeld was using General Franks to beat them about the face and shoulders.

This led me to the immediate conclusion that in fact the reverse was not preposterous but true. Rumsfeld had a spy in the White House.

Cheney.

Thoughts?

[Sky Captain]

They do.
It's called the news media.

[besson3c]

The news media cannot always penetrate the force field when being fed a steady stream of talking points that makes putting together simple minded and light stories so easy proves to sell so well, when the government is being highly secretive, and when stepping out of line often always being cut off from the information flow paramount to a journalist's career.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've been trying to think of the things Bush could have done to have averted the more disastrous results in Iraq, and one of the thoughts I had (as preposterous as this may seem) was for Bush to have had a few spies in the Pentagon. They could have told him about the gripes the generals had with the overall plan (too few troops), and how Rumsfeld was using General Franks to beat them about the face and shoulders.

This led me to the immediate conclusion that in fact the reverse was not preposterous but true. Rumsfeld had a spy in the White House.

Cheney.

Thoughts?

Very interesting proposition. Feasible, too.

As though their hidden agenda was something OTHER than winning the war?

First of all, I TRULY believe both Cheney and Rummy want only the best for America and have put America first.

However, that said, if it were possible for them to have a secondary agenda what would it have been/be?

If the war has gone so poorly, is there ANYTHING about the war/administration that has gone exceedingly well? Not that that would, in itself, be proof of anything, but it would be a puzzle piece.

I have often wondered where the advantages of their previous government experience presented itself in the current administration.

[Ron Goodman]

Cheney wanted to restore powers to the Executive Branch he felt were wrongfully taken away after Watergate/Vietnam. Rummy wanted to demonstrate the superiority of his reforms of the military. The neocons wanted to install a democracy in the Middle East. The "New American Century" imperialists wanted oil and permanent bases in the area. Joe Redneck wanted payback for 9/11, and didn't care who it was. Dubya wanted to show his daddy...something. WMD were just the easiest excuse to sell the whole mess.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman 

Cheney wanted to restore powers to the Executive Branch he felt were wrongfully taken away after Watergate/Vietnam. Rummy wanted to demonstrate the superiority of his reforms of the military. The neocons wanted to install a democracy in the Middle East. The "New American Century" imperialists wanted oil and permanent bases in the area. Joe Redneck wanted payback for 9/11, and didn't care who it was. Dubya wanted to show his daddy...something. WMD were just the easiest excuse to sell the whole mess.

Amazingly succinct interpretation of events!

[Ron Goodman]

Thanks. Something just clicked and now I'm sitting here grinning, thinking about a take off on "No Scrubs" by TLC.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

They do.
It's called the news media.

Good point.

Do you think the administration has been briefed about this?

Maybe they should hire a counterspy type.

How about Scott McClellan? I hear he's looking for a gig.

[OSX Abuser]

right or wrong..........

Bush had to invade Iraq to stop the oil producing nations switching to the euro as Iraq had done while Sadam was still in power.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Very interesting proposition. Feasible, too.

As though their hidden agenda was something OTHER than winning the war?

First of all, I TRULY believe both Cheney and Rummy want only the best for America and have put America first.

I believe they do too. There is no hidden agenda here other than basic human frailties. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Bush was told the war would work with a minimal troop deployment, and that we didn't need full-fledged international support. Bush played it this way. When it turned out that this wasn't true, what was Rumsfeld going to do?

"Mr. President, you know all those bridges you burned? All those bridges I told you it was safe to burn? Well I've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is that I'm retiring..."

This just isn't in his personality. The man is a steamroller. Bush used to call him "Rumstud". He tucked the ball into the crook of his arm and plowed forward. Rumsfeld was the alpha male in the relationship.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, the road to Hell is paved with hot tar and sharp bone fragments.

Originally Posted by marden 

If the war has gone so poorly, is there ANYTHING about the war/administration that has gone exceedingly well? Not that that would, in itself, be proof of anything, but it would be a puzzle piece.

OMFG! You nailed it! This is the final piece of the puzzle.

I've understood the mistakes and problems that went on during the planning stages, and I understand the problems we are having now (never really addressing the problems from the planning stages), but there's been this enormous gap in the middle where we continued to "stay the course" when we shouldn't have. I hadn't been able to figure out why Bush let things drag on so long without asserting his role as Commander in Chief.

What went right for the administration is very relevant. The high points were Afghanistan, and the actual combat operations in Iraq.

These were spectacular successes. Without them, Rumsfeld wouldn't have had so much slack on his leash.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

This just isn't in his personality. The man is a steamroller. Bush used to call him "Rumstud". He tucked the ball into the crook of his arm and plowed forward. Rumsfeld was the alpha male in the relationship.

Just a further comment on this.

In a very real sense, one that I'm sure you [marden] understand, this strategy isn't mutually exclusive with accomplishing the mission, it only alters the timetable. I don't think Rumsfeld would let everything slide down the crapper just so he didn't have to abandon his "transformation", though I've been hard pressed until recently to come up with a better explanation.

At the very least, deciding just to plow ahead with what he had made the job of maintaining a political will commensurate with his timetable an order of magnitude more difficult.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman 

Cheney wanted to restore powers to the Executive Branch he felt were wrongfully taken away after Watergate/Vietnam. Rummy wanted to demonstrate the superiority of his reforms of the military. The neocons wanted to install a democracy in the Middle East. The "New American Century" imperialists wanted oil and permanent bases in the area. Joe Redneck wanted payback for 9/11, and didn't care who it was. Dubya wanted to show his daddy...something.

This part may be the best thing I've ever seen from you. Most of it is debatable but the 'liberal' side of me says it "feels" right.

Now that you have it out of your system let's deal with this part which, if you are able to acknowledge, you can use to gain some real credibility around here.

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman 

WMD were just the easiest excuse to sell the whole mess.

Most people criticize the decision to invade without:


1-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's...at the time. After the fact doesn't count.
2-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
3-Regard to any possible danger to Israel.
4-Regard to any possible impact on world peace.
5-Knowing how our oil access would be affected.
6-Knowing how global leaders would react to our actions.
7-Regard to Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
8-Recognizing that the containment was crumbling.
9-Recognizing that the US was committed to regime change (see: The US Iraq Liberation Act).
10-Regard to the multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
11-Appreciating the need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
12-Understanding the need for a convenient battle ground other than America or Afghanistan.
13-Appreciating the need for stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
14-Acknowledging the cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
15-Being aware of Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

Why do so many people seem to shrug when it comes to considering Israel's possible annihilation before the Iraq invasion?

Are they bigoted against the Israelis?

Anti-Semitic?

Imagine a world without Israel or America?

This is what Irans President announced after they aquired Nuculear (sp?) capabilities. A hydrogen Bomb could be detonated 200 miles from the eastern seaboard, 100 miles in the air and the electromagnetic pulse would fry all the microchips in North America, sending us technologically back into the 19th century.

Also he thinks it is his destiny to cause the circumstances that would usher in the final Emam (Prophet?) and end life as we know it on planet earth. Does thia have any spiritual significance to you? And if you are an atheist...what are you thoughts on this as well.

Yahoo! Answers - Imagine a world without Israel or America?

[goMac]

Here is how I see it happening.

The Neocons and The New American Century leadership are frustrated in the late 90's. They are looking for a means to strengthen U.S. military power world wide but so far any efforts to do so have fell flat in the government. With conventional warfare growing obsolete and the last conventional war being Desert Storm, military funding is being cut. The Neocons need a convention war to get their funding upped and their defense contractor interests making money again.

The Neocons are aware that there is no way one of their own could get elected, their viewpoints are too far right. As a result, they decide they need to back the weakest candidate in the presidential election. A weaker candidate would be moderate enough to be more palatable to the American people, while being more suggestible by the neocons. So Bush, who has little political experience is backed instead of McCain, who is more opinionated and has more political experience. And it works, Bush is elected into the White House. While he is a kinder, gentler public face, his advisory positions are all assigned to the neocons. Cheney is Bush's VP, but he is kept far in the background to keep Bush's image clear of any Neocon association.

Still, Bush is not as suggestible as the Neocons would like. While Bush is not friendly towards the Middle East, he has no reason to be pushed into an unnecessary war there.

Fortunately for the neocons, 9/11 happens. This provides a legitimate reason to invade Afghanistan and start an American military presence in the Middle East. Bush's advisors, namely Cheney and Rumsfeld, push for an Iraq invasion at the same time, knowing that the timing is better than ever. Bush is still not convinced, and will not invade Iraq without evidence that they were involved in 9/11.

Cheney and Rumsfeld go back to the drawing board, and request the CIA look for a connection between Iraq and Al Quada. The CIA comes back with all the information they have connecting Al Quada and Iraq. It's shaky evidence at best, and Cheney and Rumsfeld are warned. None the less, it is presented to the President as solid evidence. The President then ok's military action in Iraq, and gives the far right the conventional war they were looking for. Military spending is increased, defense contractors get their new contracts, and the right begins re-assembling America's military power.

However, this goes very badly for America. Once again, conventional warfare has been outdated. Instead of having conventional battles, America's troops are stuck in a street war they can't win, fighting an enemy that are the very people they were assigned to protect.

Seeing they've made a huge mistake, the neocons start to drop out of the Bush presidency one by one, leaving the administration before their image is too badly tarnished. Bush is left at the helm of a sinking ship taking all the blame, with his advisors who got him into the war no where to be found.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Why do so many people seem to shrug when it comes to considering Israel's possible annihilation before the Iraq invasion?

Because Iran was the bigger threat.

Because we gave finding and securing WMD minimal priority.

It's not like WMD weren't a concern. The issue is the weight they were given publicly did not match the weight they were given from an operational standpoint.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Still, Bush is not as suggestible as the Neocons would like. While Bush is not friendly towards the Middle East, he has no reason to be pushed into an unnecessary war there.

What do you think of Paul O'Neill's claim that taking out Iraq was brought up at Bush's first NSC meeting?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by marden 

Why do so many people seem to shrug when it comes to considering Israel's possible annihilation before the Iraq invasion?

Are they bigoted against the Israelis?

Anti-Semitic?

Umm, I don't think preventing the annihilation of Israel should be the biggest driver of US military policy. Does that make me anti-Israeli? Possibly. Of course, I don't think preventing the annihilation of Sudan--from within via inter-religious warfare--should be the biggest driver of US military policy. Does that make me anti-African or anti-black? Possibly. I can live with either one of those charges against me if it means we don't engage in pre-emptive wars again. Although, I would prefer the term isolationist.

Let's face it, if Israel felt genuinely threatened by the possibility of a nuclear attack they would take matters into their own hands with a pre-emptive strike on those they deemed a threat to them--Look at the attack on the Osirak nuclear reactor complex in the early 1980s.

So, tell us Abermojarden, why should the defense of Israel be the biggest, or one of the biggest, drivers of US military policy?

[Ron Goodman]

Had the various players been more open about the real reasons for their actions, they might or might not have succeeded in winning support for them--who knows? By initiating a preemptive war with no international support based on the threat of WMD which were never found, and many(most?) believe never existed, Bush is permanently stuck on the defensive. If you're going to take a step that extreme, you had better be right. Bush was wrong. He'll be gone in two years, but he will have left us with a big bag of **** to deal with for a long time. Iran will be a huge winner, Israel will be less secure, and the coming melt-down in Iraq could drag the entire region into chaos. In the mean time, the Taliban is returning and OBL is still out there, a hero to a lot of people.

[marden]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, I don't think preventing the annihilation of Israel should be the biggest driver of US military policy. Does that make me anti-Israeli? Possibly. Of course, I don't think preventing the annihilation of Sudan--from within via inter-religious warfare--should be the biggest driver of US military policy. Does that make me anti-African or anti-black? Possibly. I can live with either one of those charges against me if it means we don't engage in pre-emptive wars again. Although, I would prefer the term isolationist.

Let's face it, if Israel felt genuinely threatened by the possibility of a nuclear attack they would take matters into their own hands with a pre-emptive strike on those they deemed a threat to them--Look at the attack on the Osirak nuclear reactor complex in the early 1980s.

So, tell us Abermojarden, why should the defense of Israel be the biggest, or one of the biggest, drivers of US military policy?

Aside from any of the dozens of OTHER reasons why not just think of the effect it would have on US credibility and prestige around the world? (ASSUMING THE WORLD WOULD SURVIVE SUCH AN ATTACK)

Keep in mind that Israel is the LITTLE Satan. We are called the GREAT Satan.

If any nation has no faith in America's friendship being worthwhile, then those of you who bemoan the US not being liked in the world should get used to it.

We will NEVER be able to get support for anything ever again.

We are already close to being thought of as the world'd beyotch, but if we let Iraq be sacrificed and we let Israel be sacrificed, we'd deserve to lose our own liberty.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman 

Had the various players been more open about the real reasons for their actions, they might or might not have succeeded in winning support for them--who knows? By initiating a preemptive war with no international support based on the threat of WMD which were never found, and many(most?) believe never existed, Bush is permanently stuck on the defensive. If you're going to take a step that extreme, you had better be right. Bush was wrong. He'll be gone in two years, but he will have left us with a big bag of **** to deal with for a long time. Iran will be a huge winner, Israel will be less secure, and the coming melt-down in Iraq could drag the entire region into chaos. In the mean time, the Taliban is returning and OBL is still out there, a hero to a lot of people.

Please stop making up your own reality, ok?

As to WMD, about which there has been significantly more media coverage, 60 percent of respondents said Iraq either had actual WMD (38 percent) or had a major program for developing them (22 percent). In contrast, 39 percent said Baghdad had limited WMD-related activities that fell short of an active program – what Kay as the CIA's main weapons inspector concluded in February – or no activities at all.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ips/lobe77.html

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

If any nation has no faith in America's friendship being worthwhile, then those of you who bemoan the US not being liked in the world should get used to it.

We will NEVER be able to get support for anything ever again.

In the same regard, we shouldn't defend our allies on everything they do without first passing judgement on whether it is right or wrong because then we will look like the world's biggest pushover.

"What's the Israel? You're destroying homes of civilians and pissing off a lot of people? Oh sure, we won't criticize you. We can't criticize our allies. It's just not right. Feel free to do anything you want and we won't say a word, in fact, we'll back you up."

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

POne, Two, Many Messes by Jim Lobe

Because Bush said there were WMD's and people believed him.

Bush told people it was true, and people believed him, therefore it must be true and Bush is faultless! What backwards, circular logic. Notice how Bush didn't say the CIA said the info was bad. Wonder how many people would have believed him then.

And it doesn't suddenly invalidate the people who said that Iraq didn't have WMD's.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

In the same regard, we shouldn't defend our allies on everything they do without first passing judgement on whether it is right or wrong because then we will look like the world's biggest pushover.

"What's the Israel? You're destroying homes of civilians and pissing off a lot of people? Oh sure, we won't criticize you. We can't criticize our allies. It's just not right. Feel free to do anything you want and we won't say a word, in fact, we'll back you up."

I'm not ignoring the fact that the palestinians are suffering. What I'm saying is that their suffering is directly caused by Hamas, NOT because of what Israel is or isn't doing.

Israel: religious freedom for all - including Moslems

Moslems at Al-Aksa Mosque in Israeli capital Jerusalem

Why Support Israel?
It would certainly be easier not to.
Victor Davis Hanson on Israel on National Review Online

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've been trying to think of the things Bush could have done to have averted the more disastrous results in Iraq, and one of the thoughts I had (as preposterous as this may seem) was for Bush to have had a few spies in the Pentagon. They could have told him about the gripes the generals had with the overall plan (too few troops), and how Rumsfeld was using General Franks to beat them about the face and shoulders.

This led me to the immediate conclusion that in fact the reverse was not preposterous but true. Rumsfeld had a spy in the White House.

Cheney.

Thoughts?

What difference does it matter if people are telling him the truth if he DOES NOT LISTEN...?

[marden]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro 

What difference does it matter if people are telling him the truth if he DOES NOT LISTEN...?

The job of a President is more art than science.

I get so many little indications that many people would rather have a President who only does THEIR will.

Of course there should be a good amount of that. But the reason we have the kind of campaign for Presidential office that we do is so we can get a sense of the MAN who will occupy the office because when the time comes we want and NEED him to use his own best judgment to do what's best for the country.

That's called statesmanship and leadership.

And when it comes to war, it is insane to allow the citizenry to tell the military how to fight. The people of America have become so morally, socially and politically skittish that the military in trying to reflect the will of the people have lost their own rudder and a sense of what warfare is and should be.

Why Iraq Will End as Vietnam Did by Martin Van Creveld

To make things stranger still, the determination of American decision-makers to ignore world public opinion was counterbalanced by their extreme sensitivity to the views of their own electorate. At that moment, he noted, fully seventy five percent of those polled were in favor of bombing North Vietnam – just as, in April 2004, a small majority of Americans still believed that the war in Iraq was worth-while. Still permitting public opinion to decide on such issues seemed to him a strange way to run a war, and one he thought was likely to have grave consequences for the future.

I feel it is like the hopelessly faithful military trying to serve a terminally 'blonde' American public.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

And when it comes to war, it is insane to allow the citizenry to tell the military how to fight. The people of America have become so morally, socially and politically skittish that the military in trying to reflect the will of the people have lost their own rudder and a sense of what warfare is and should be.

What? I can't make any sense of this statement.

The military lost their rudder? Are you sure Rumsfeld didn't lose it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro 

What difference does it matter if people are telling him the truth if he DOES NOT LISTEN...?

What makes you think the issue is he doesn't listen? Seems to be more evidence that he's amassed a bad list of whom to listen to.

For example, he used to listen to Rumsfeld, now he doesn't. Prolly doesn't listen much to Cheney any more either.

One would imagine he'll listen to Gates, though, hey, maybe not.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

Moslems at Al-Aksa Mosque in Israeli capital Jerusalem

LOL. That you don't see the irony in what you posted!

Riddle me this. Leaving aside Israel's blatant human rights abuses, its illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, its illegal settlements and annexation of land, its inability to commit to international borders and it apartheid practises in the occupied territories. Leaving all that aside, why do you think that the USA is responsible for the security of a country with the 4th most powerful army in the world and the only regional power with nuclear weapons? Do you think that Israel cannot look after itself?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Because Bush said there were WMD's and people believed him.

Oh not just Bush! Many Dems and Presidents Before him! Bush was just following along with the work that was handed to him about such things.

Remember, Clinton saying this?

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Tell me, why didn't we question Clinton's claims that Iraq ALREADY HAD THESE programs when he bombed and killed a bunch of people?

This isn't something new Bush made up to "fool the masses" that's leftist FUD.

What you are doing is slightly short of trolling.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

What? I can't make any sense of this statement.

The military lost their rudder? Are you sure Rumsfeld didn't lose it?

A military, to SOME degree, reflects the mores and attitudes of it's citizenry.

What does it say that we have tried to wage the Immaculate War and have even tried to convince Israel to wage Immaculate Warfare in Lebanon against Hezbollah?

We are hoping to make warfare clean and as unmessy as possible by use of precision and stand off weapons and because that is what the American people wanted Rummy tried to give them that. He went out on a limb to advance the idea of a smaller, faster, hard hitting, quick moving military that would serve all of the masters he had to serve.

The American people are risk averse and don't want to see too much blood being spilled (innocents, ours or the enemy's) for too long a period of time.

The American people don't want to have to pay to maintain a huge military of the size needed to pre-emptively deter others' aggressions or of the size needed to allow us to go into any war with overwhelming manpower.

The American people want our forces to have the very best weapons and weapon systems available. Systems with capabilities that sometimes dazzle the American eye and delight our videogame playing minds.

The American people believe that hippie/slacker style American freedoms should be a part of warfare.

And sadly none of these have proven to work as well as we'd have liked. Rummy tried to serve the American people what we wanted. What he should have done was what was best suited to assure victory.

When the guy and his family took the 'shortcut' in Oregon little did he know it would lead to the tragedy that occurred.

When Rummy tried to shortcut the tried and true method of warfare (Colin Powell & Stormin Norman style) little did he dream it would result in this.

If we ever decide to win this it will be with a return to the tried and proven.

But make no mistake, Bush is not a military expert. Rummy was but he tried to take a shortcut. And why?

Because we were whining, even before the war started, "are we there yet?"

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll 

LOL. That you don't see the irony in what you posted!

Riddle me this. Leaving aside Israel's blatant human rights abuses, its illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, its illegal settlements and annexation of land, its inability to commit to international borders and it apartheid practises in the occupied territories. Leaving all that aside, why do you think that the USA is responsible for the security of a country with the 4th most powerful army in the world and the only regional power with nuclear weapons? Do you think that Israel cannot look after itself?

Please everyone reading this get it through your heads.

YOU DO NOT WANT ISRAEL TO HAVE TO USE IT'S TEETH TO CONTROL ANY WMD THREAT AGAINST IT.

Can't you understand that could be the last event before Armageddon? And could act as the trigger?

But on another vein, please tell me which other U.S. ally would we abandon in that way if they were confronted with a nuclear threat?

If NOKO vowed to wipe all maple syrup and beer loving Canadians off the map and positioned missile bases close enough to accomplish this would we be as sanguine?

Through extensive power generation and production capabilities, Canada has the technological capabilities to develop nuclear weapons, possessing large amounts of plutonium through power generation. Canada could develop nuclear weapons within a short period of time if attempted. While no nuclear weapons program existed, Canada was technically well placed to proceed with a program as early as 1945 if they wished to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uclear_weapons

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

Please everyone reading this get it through your heads.

YOU DO NOT WANT ISRAEL TO HAVE TO USE IT'S TEETH TO CONTROL ANY WMD THREAT AGAINST IT.

Can't you understand that could be the last event before Armageddon? And could act as the trigger?

Oh right, they're the 4th most powerful in the world but the only way they could have protected themselves from Iraq (one of the weaker armies in the region) would have been to use nuclear weapons!! Either you know nothing about Israel's military or you're up to your scare tactics again. If there really had been WMD under palm trees in Northern Iraq, the Mossad would have known all about it and the Israli Army would have been at least as competent, if not more competent than the US in dealing with that threat WITHOUT resorting to nuclear weapons. Besides, Israel doesn't have enough nuclear warheads to cause Armageddon!

The point remains though, why in your opinion is the US Israel's bitch? How come Israel doesn't even have to ask and (according to you), the US rushes off to protect it?

You're wrong Marden. Everyone knows that Israel is big and ugly enough to protect itself. That has nothing to do with going into Iraq. Iraq wasn't a threat to Israel. If it had been, Israel would have dealt with Saddam ... without resorting to nukes.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll 

You're wrong Marden. Everyone knows that Israel is big and ugly enough to protect itself. That has nothing to do with going into Iraq. Iraq wasn't a threat to Israel. If it had been, Israel would have dealt with Saddam ... without resorting to nukes.

Yeah who was bombing Israel during desert storm?

Who stopped Israel from attacking?

That's what I thought.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

But make no mistake, Bush is not a military expert. Rummy was but he tried to take a shortcut. And why?

Because we were whining, even before the war started, "are we there yet?"

No.

You ignore that a shortcut is dependent on cutting things short. When a shortcut fails to do that, it is no longer a shortcut.

Rumsfeld took the shortcut because that's what he wanted to do. We didn't use the overwhelming force doctrine because suggesting the overwhelming force doctrine to Rumsfeld was bad for your career.

The reason he didn't believe in overwhelming force wasn't because of sustainability, it was because of the international pressure that comes with taking a year to move your forces into position.

Rumsfeld made the miscalculation of the century to appease the ****ing French.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Yeah who was bombing Israel during desert storm?

Who stopped Israel from attacking?

That's what I thought.

An impotent handful of SCUD missiles, a couple of which actually managed to hit targets...

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'm not ignoring the fact that the palestinians are suffering. What I'm saying is that their suffering is directly caused by Hamas, NOT because of what Israel is or isn't doing.

The problem with your argument is Palestinian suffering predates Hamas, which implies Hamas is a reaction to Palestinian suffering.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

An impotent handful of SCUD missiles, a couple of which actually managed to hit targets...

That doesn't in any way diminish my point. They were baiting Israel attempting to draw them into the war.