All Hank, all the time.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The same folks who didn't know that Hezbollah had cruise missiles and sophisticated anti-tank rockets? Hmmm.

Maybe what Israeli intelligence knew or didn't know has not been made public knowledge in real time. Most of what I read is speculation on what Israel knew or didn't. Certainly Ohlmert made strategic mistakes, but the taboo on putting ground troops back into Lebanon was fueled by more than just a belief that the air campaign would suffice.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Here are a couple of quotes, below, from 2001, that led me to believe it would be a long hard struggle. I could keep looking, but I don't want to waste more time. did you really believe at the start of the Iraq campaing that it would last 6 weeks, start to finish? I didn't, I thought 5-10 years. And I still supported it. I honestly can't believe that any educated person believed the whole thing would be a quick slam dunk and the Dem Senators who run for President in 08 should be held to such a standard when they try to repudiate their votes for the war based on some assinine quote from Rumsfield.

September 20, 2001
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.



October 8, 2001
US Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "It isn't going to be solved with a single counter-attack against one individual, it's going to be a long term conflict."

I'm sorry -- I think you left out the part that you must have intended to quote, about how there would be a six-year occupation of Iraq.

Of course, since both of those quotes come from long before the Bush Admin was (publicly) discussing invading Iraq, that's hardly surprising. Those are quotes about a different, or certainly wider, war -- the war on terror, as they called it.

The "war on terror" is not coextensive with the war in Iraq (I would argue that the latter should never have been part of the former, but whatever.) Even if we had left Iraq in a month's time (or after Mission Accomplished, or while the insurgency was in its last throes, or whatever), the war on terror would still be going on (hell, we might be able to focus our military resources on that war -- that would be nice). And that is what those quotes refer to.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The stakes are higher. tens of thousands of troops don't equate with the continued existence of Israel or hegemony in the ME. Whether one believes it justifies war or not, oil is a factor here. If Iran controls the ME, not only can they wipe out Israel, they can shut down the industrialized world's economy. Or pick and choose.

1) Iran will never control the middle east because they are Shiite and the rest of the Middle east is Sunni (except for sixty percent of Iraq and a few scattered pockets in Lebanon, Pakistan and other places). Most of the region would not tolerate these "heretics in charge". Most of the oil is in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and those countrys will never let Shiite Iran control them.

2) If we didn't nuke to save South Vietnam, South Korea etc, I don't see why we would nuke to save Israel.

3)I don't see how nuking anyone is going to help us hold onto our oil supply.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm sorry -- I think you left out the part that you must have intended to quote, about how there would be a six-year occupation of Iraq.

Of course, since both of those quotes come from long before the Bush Admin was (publicly) discussing invading Iraq, that's hardly surprising. Those are quotes about a different, or certainly wider, war -- the war on terror, as they called it.

The "war on terror" is not coextensive with the war in Iraq (I would argue that the latter should never have been part of the former, but whatever.) Even if we had left Iraq in a month's time (or after Mission Accomplished, or while the insurgency was in its last throes, or whatever), the war on terror would still be going on (hell, we might be able to focus our military resources on that war -- that would be nice). And that is what those quotes refer to.

It's part of it, and you can't leave off a part once you start. But go back, in 03, did you really think it would be a 6 week proposition?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Maybe what Israeli intelligence knew or didn't know has not been made public knowledge in real time. Most of what I read is speculation on what Israel knew or didn't. Certainly Ohlmert made strategic mistakes, but the taboo on putting ground troops back into Lebanon was fueled by more than just a belief that the air campaign would suffice.

Maybe. But every report, every article, every statement has said that Israel was surprised. And would Israel have moved ships into missile range if it had known about the cruise missiles? Without destroying the cruise missiles or launchers first? That seems unlikely.

Ditto for moving in tanks while knowing (as you seem to believe) what arms Hezbollah had and where they had them.

You are relying on your speculation, contrary to all evidence, that Israeli intelligence is virtually omiscient. Basing strategic plans on fantasy is a pretty risky endeavor. Though, sadly, not without recent precedent.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's part of it, and you can't leave off a part once you start. But go back, in 03, did you really think it would be a 6 week proposition?

Did you really think it would last six years?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm sorry -- I think you left out the part that you must have intended to quote, about how there would be a six-year occupation of Iraq.

Did the administration ever say that the occupation and the transition to democracy in Iraq would be quick and painless? I don't think they ever said that. In fact I am pretty sure they said just the opposite.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) Iran will never control the middle east because they are Shiite and the rest of the Middle east is Sunni (except for sixty percent of Iraq and a few scattered pockets in Lebanon, Pakistan and other places). Most of the region would not tolerate these "heretics in charge". Most of the oil is in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and those countrys will never let Shiite Iran control them.

2) If we didn't nuke to save South Vietnam, South Korea etc, I don't see why we would nuke to save Israel.

3)I don't see how nuking anyone is going to help us hold onto our oil supply.

1. Once Iran has nukes, and they take out Israel, who stands up to them? The Saudis? Us? They launch a ground and missile war to take the Gulf States. They have 60% of Iraq behind them. I think we are in trouble.

2. Uhm, I think its a different equation. Niether North Korea/China nor N. Vietnam were talking about wiping a race of people off the map. Those were cold war proxy battles within a country. Wiping Israel off the map is different and has an heightened context in light of the previous attemtp to wipe out the Jews.


3. Why not just massive targeted bombing then?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Maybe. But every report, every article, every statement has said that Israel was surprised. And would Israel have moved ships into missile range if it had known about the cruise missiles? Without destroying the cruise missiles or launchers first? That seems unlikely.

Ditto for moving in tanks while knowing (as you seem to believe) what arms Hezbollah had and where they had them.

You are relying on your speculation, contrary to all evidence, that Israeli intelligence is virtually omiscient. Basing strategic plans on fantasy is a pretty risky endeavor. Though, sadly, not without recent precedent.

No, I am not saying they are omniscent. I think it is somewhere between omnescient and complete lack of knowledge, and what shows up in the press on a contemporaneoous basis is probably not the whole of the facts.

[Spanky]

Pat Buchanan also said:

"Powerful Mexican and U.S. elites seek to erase America’s borders and merge the United States and Mexico into a 'North American Union.'"

Sometimes I get the feeling that he is reading my posts and mistakingly thinking they are being made by someone who matters.

The weird thing is that Mr. Buchanan is Catholic so why is he so afraid of Mexican culture? They have strong family values, listen to the Pope much more than their Catholic American counterparts (when it comes to contraception etc.) , have much fewer abortions per capita, get divorced less, and they attend church much more than your average American.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Did you really think it would last six years?

5-10 years. Believe it or not. That was what I thought at the time, and still think, assuming we stay the course. That is not to say that the outcome has to be the United States of Iraq, it could be the dividing it up into 3s, but I did and do think it will take 5-10 years. And with 3 plus behind us, I think more than min of 5 is likely.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did the administration ever say that the occupation and the transition to democracy in Iraq would be quick and painless? I don't think they ever said that. In fact I am pretty sure they said just the opposite.

2.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No, I am not saying they are omniscent. I think it is somewhere between omnescient and complete lack of knowledge, and what shows up in the press on a contemporaneoous basis is probably not the whole of the facts.

I never suggested that Israel had a "complete lack of knowledge." I suspect that Israel has the best intelligence services in the world. But even that intelligence service apparently did not realize how well armed its sworn enemy was, or where those arms were kept.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Pat Buchanan also said:

"Powerful Mexican and U.S. elites seek to erase America’s borders and merge the United States and Mexico into a 'North American Union.'"

Sometimes I get the feeling that he is reading my posts and mistakingly thinking they are being made by someone who matters.

The weird thing is that Mr. Buchanan is Catholic so why is he so afraid of Mexican culture? They have strong family values, listen to the Pope much more than their Catholic American counterparts (when it comes to contraception etc.) , have much fewed abortions per capita, get divorced less, and they attend church much more than your average American.

Racist Xenophobe.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I never suggested that Israel had a "complete lack of knowledge." I suspect that Israel has the best intelligence services in the world. But even that intelligence service apparently did not realize how well armed its sworn enemy was, or where those arms were kept.

And my rebuttal is, that they knew where some of the arms were but not others-it's probably impossible to know where all of them were. They may have underestimate the amount, or perhaps not, its impossible to tell with certitude. They probably underestimate the technology leaps in weaponry.

I am not arguing that they did not make mistakes or that the war went perfectly. On the other hand, the fight is not fair in the sense that Israel continues to play by certain rules. Part of the reason Lebanon is armed as it is is because of Syria, but Israel was not meaningfully striking back at Syria. If they were to do that, the equation might change. Not that the battle would be over more quickly but tey would start to get to the root of the problem.