RuntheDamnBall Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I am slightly skeptical, not because the WSJ has big financial ties (in the past, its reporting has been saluted far and wide), but more due to the timing, as well as the Murdoch purchase and his penchant for inserting his views into the news reporting in his ventures. That said, gonna read the report as soon as I can and form my own opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Yes. See Molson. See Molson misunderstand a topic. Misunderstand, Molson, misunderstand! Country A [iraq] harms Country B [israel] Country C [united States] then destroys Country A using attack on Country B as a reason Why did Country C go to war? I'm very, very bad for writing what I just did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I am slightly skeptical, not because the WSJ has big financial ties (in the past, its reporting has been saluted far and wide), but more due to the timing, as well as the Murdoch purchase and his penchant for inserting his views into the news reporting in his ventures. That said, gonna read the report as soon as I can and form my own opinion. Dude, the WSJ was blaming Saddam for Oklahoma City attack years ago. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002217 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Country A [iraq] harms Country B [israel] Country C [united States] then destroys Country A using attack on Country B as a reason Why did Country C go to war? I'm very, very bad for writing what I just did No, you're very, very stupid for not understanding that the "Global War on Terrorism" is NOT the "Limited War on Trans-National Terrorists Hiding In Central Asia Who Are Behind The Attacks Of 9/11/2001." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Not every, just yours. I know, GG, I know. The bar is pretty low Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 No, you're very, very stupid for not understanding that the "Global War on Terrorism" is NOT the "Limited War on Trans-National Terrorists Hiding In Central Asia Who Are Behind The Attacks Of 9/11/2001." I know, I know, we gots to get all the "bad guys." He that is naughty in thy eye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I know, I know, we gots to get all the "bad guys." He that is naughty in thy eye! What, are you drinking the East Brady Kool-aid today? Start making sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Read the report, squid boy. I saw it a while back, when a couple of the Neocons I work with were attempting to make the same argument that the WSJ Editorial Board is trying to make. Nothing gets you past the fact that there is absolutely nothing new in the pentagon report. Nothing! It's all just the same tenuous links which have been known for years packaged in a bright new wrapper. Nobody credible ever argued that Saddam was a nice guy or that he was against terrorism. The argument was, is, and forever shall be that the Iraq invasion wasn't necessary to the GWOT, distracted from the search for Bin Laudin, and would trap us in a useless Vietnam-Like Quagmire, all of which has been proven to be true. So Yeah, I still believe that the Iraq Invasion was possibly the biggest mistake ever made by a President and his Administration. But that's just me. If you want to chase your tail trying to find a way to justify that decision and make it all better, feel free to continue your efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 What, are you drinking the East Brady Kool-aid today? Start making sense. I just don't want to get into it. What's the point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I'm just glad Saddam is gone so the people in Iraq no longer have to suffer under the yoke of his dictatorship. I am safer knowing his ties to ANY terrorist organization have been forever severed. We are all safer for having happier Iraqi citizens who can now go forth and embrace the freedom of democracy. Who will defend their new brothers in democracy by making sure NO more terrorist organizations will ever again be able to work from a safe haven in Iraq. (sarcasm off) It doesn't matter one iota what the pretense for going to war was anymore. That's just for those who have to say I told you so on one side or the other. Is Bush's "legacy" going to improve any? Does it do the anti-war side any good at all to be correct 5 years after the fact? Colin Powell's Pottery Barn forecast was dead-on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 I just don't want to get into it. What's the point.... Damn. I was counting on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I just don't want to get into it. What's the point.... There isn't one, really. But wouldn't it be better to say that at the start, rather than write a series of snide one-line posts insulting everyone... ...oh, wait. Nevermind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 There isn't one, really. But wouldn't it be better to say that at the start, rather than write a series of snide one-line posts insulting everyone... ...oh, wait. Nevermind... Now you know how it feels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 I saw it a while back, when a couple of the Neocons I work with were attempting to make the same argument that the WSJ Editorial Board is trying to make. Nothing gets you past the fact that there is absolutely nothing new in the pentagon report. Nothing! It's all just the same tenuous links which have been known for years packaged in a bright new wrapper. Nobody credible ever argued that Saddam was a nice guy or that he was against terrorism. The argument was, is, and forever shall be that the Iraq invasion wasn't necessary to the GWOT, distracted from the search for Bin Laudin, and would trap us in a useless Vietnam-Like Quagmire, all of which has been proven to be true. So Yeah, I still believe that the Iraq Invasion was possibly the biggest mistake ever made by a President and his Administration. But that's just me. If you want to chase your tail trying to find a way to justify that decision and make it all better, feel free to continue your efforts. Assuming there is nothing new in the report are we? That says alot about you RI. Tsk Tsk. Though I havent finished reading the whole report, there are some things in there that I didnt know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 There isn't one, really. But wouldn't it be better to say that at the start, rather than write a series of snide one-line posts insulting everyone... ...oh, wait. Nevermind... Holy crap! You hypocrite! *You mean like that?* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I'm just glad Saddam is gone so the people in Iraq no longer have to suffer under the yoke of his dictatorship. I am safer knowing his ties to ANY terrorist organization have been forever severed. We are all safer for having happier Iraqi citizens who can now go forth and embrace the freedom of democracy. Who will defend their new brothers in democracy by making sure NO more terrorist organizations will ever again be able to work from a safe haven in Iraq. (sarcasm off) It doesn't matter one iota what the pretense for going to war was anymore. That's just for those who have to say I told you so on one side or the other. Is Bush's "legacy" going to improve any? Does it do the anti-war side any good at all to be correct 5 years after the fact? Colin Powell's Pottery Barn forecast was dead-on. Right, and the logic you're ripping is a flawed logic that doesn't get to the heart of why terrorism succeeds in this day in age. That is, it's comprised of loose connections that become more connected when necessary, and dissolve when they're not. It really is like the hydra and not something where we could even get Saddam, OBL and AZ and say we're done with it. Aside from the funding networks routed through the so-called masterminds, I think these orgs are just as dangerous without the figureheads as they are with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Right, and the logic you're ripping is a flawed logic that doesn't get to the heart of why terrorism succeeds in this day in age. That is, it's comprised of loose connections that become more connected when necessary, and dissolve when they're not. It really is like the hydra and not something where we could even get Saddam, OBL and AZ and say we're done with it. Aside from the funding networks routed through the so-called masterminds, I think these orgs are just as dangerous without the figureheads as they are with them. It could be argued that they are MORE dangerous with figureheads removed. Especially figureheads who operated like a Mafia Don. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Right, and the logic you're ripping is a flawed logic that doesn't get to the heart of why terrorism succeeds in this day in age. That is, it's comprised of loose connections that become more connected when necessary, and dissolve when they're not. It really is like the hydra and not something where we could even get Saddam, OBL and AZ and say we're done with it. Aside from the funding networks routed through the so-called masterminds, I think these orgs are just as dangerous without the figureheads as they are with them. Indeed, one of the side effects of the GWOT has actually been to make them more decentralized, making them harder to catch and stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 It could be argued that they are MORE dangerous with figureheads removed. Especially figureheads who operated like a Mafia Don. I was pretty much going to say that but stepped back for some reason. I do think it would be a huge morale coup for us to take down one of the two big AQ heads (just as it was for a brief moment with Saddam), but I don't for a second think it wouldn't actually embolden their supporters. Really the best thing to do is to make their position seem intellectually bankrupt within the rest of the Muslim community. Going after them and getting rid of the real hardcores is probably good to some extent, but going about it the way we have thus far been has been pretty damaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Assuming there is nothing new in the report are we? That says alot about you RI. Tsk Tsk. Though I havent finished reading the whole report, there are some things in there that I didnt know. You not knowing something doesn't make it a new thing... Heckfire and Darnnation Boy! That doesn't even make it unusual or uncommon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts