You can bet there are many, many more plans based around the middle east than any other region.smtt686 wrote:
Their are op-plans for just about any and every scenario you can think of. Not just the middle east.Bertster7 wrote:
There were probably loads of plans for invading Iraq. That's what they do all day at the Pentagon, think up different ways of invading middle eastern countries.
Whether this has any real meaning is another thing entirely.
hell i bet they have scenarios for scenarios
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Bush planned Iraq invasion before being President?
Reasonable suggestion:
…" increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million "… (14%, Seems reasonable; or even a so-what).
Reasonable suggestion:
…" INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually. "… (but then again the cost of fighting a war is a different story).
Not so reasonable - kind of contradictory as objectives:
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
... Peace(?) and yet - fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars?
" This report proceeds from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces. Today, the United States has an unprecedented strategic opportunity. It faces no immediate great-power challenge; it is blessed with wealthy, powerful and democratic allies in every part of the world; it is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in its history; and its political and economic principles are almost universally embraced. At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals. The challenge for the coming century is to preserve and enhance this “American peace.”
…" increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million "… (14%, Seems reasonable; or even a so-what).
Reasonable suggestion:
…" INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually. "… (but then again the cost of fighting a war is a different story).
Not so reasonable - kind of contradictory as objectives:
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
... Peace(?) and yet - fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars?
" This report proceeds from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces. Today, the United States has an unprecedented strategic opportunity. It faces no immediate great-power challenge; it is blessed with wealthy, powerful and democratic allies in every part of the world; it is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in its history; and its political and economic principles are almost universally embraced. At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals. The challenge for the coming century is to preserve and enhance this “American peace.”
Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-23 13:56:02)
I thought that has been discussed multiple times on D&ST and there is no discussion about it: there were no WMDs in Iraq, so the Bush Administration lied about the real reasons to go to war: oil, military presence, the value of the petro-dollar against the euro, etc.Bertster7 wrote:
The important fact, if this document is factual, is that everyone was lied to about the reasons for the war and the intelligence on WMDs was blatantly fabricated to give the US grounds for invading Iraq, when really they just wanted a military foothold in the middle east.
I have made several posts about this in the past, and so have you.
The question of the OP is (imo): did these people deliberately plan an attack on Iraq, back in the '90's, to be executed when there was a new (neo-con) president? And that I find it difficult to believe.
Yeah, but before this there was no conclusive proof, just extreme scepticism.Pierre wrote:
I thought that has been discussed multiple times on D&ST and there is no discussion about it: there were no WMDs in Iraq, so the Bush Administration lied about the real reasons to go to war: oil, military presence, the value of the petro-dollar against the euro, etc.Bertster7 wrote:
The important fact, if this document is factual, is that everyone was lied to about the reasons for the war and the intelligence on WMDs was blatantly fabricated to give the US grounds for invading Iraq, when really they just wanted a military foothold in the middle east.
I have made several posts about this in the past, and so have you.
The question of the OP is (imo): did these people deliberately plan an attack on Iraq, back in the '90's, to be executed when there was a new (neo-con) president? And that I find it difficult to believe.
I never for a moment believed the war was anything to do with WMDs but this report shows that it was not, if it is accurate.
This kind of evidence won't make any difference to anyone on the far right of the political spectrum as it will just be dismissed as liberal bias and all the other convenient tags that are put on information of this nature. I'm sure many people on the far right know that there were ulterior motives to the war in Iraq but are not bothered as they see the current conflict as a valid way of establishing an influence in an area of the world where a commanding presence may enhance the US's security and gain them further control of the world's oil market.
I myself see it as a further example of why Bush and his cronies deserve to be put on trial for war crimes. Pre-meditated invasion of a nation for purely strategic and self motivated reasons incurring the death of 1000's of men, women and children ...despicable.
I myself see it as a further example of why Bush and his cronies deserve to be put on trial for war crimes. Pre-meditated invasion of a nation for purely strategic and self motivated reasons incurring the death of 1000's of men, women and children ...despicable.
Shame they can't be. The US is one of the few countries that doesn't follow international law.Braddock wrote:
I myself see it as a further example of why Bush and his cronies deserve to be put on trial for war crimes. Pre-meditated invasion of a nation for purely strategic and self motivated reasons incurring the death of 1000's of men, women and children ...despicable.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-02-23 14:57:07)
I'd say Neil Mackay Loves his conspiracies.
BRITAIN ran a covert 'dirty tricks' operation designed specifically to produce misleading intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to give the UK a justifiable excuse to wage war on Iraq.
KF goes on to accuse the British government of 'giving terrorists a mandate to abduct, interrogate and murder sources of intelligence', citing the 1999 assassination of Charles Bennett, a Belfast taxi driver who was killed for being a police informer, as an example of an agent being abandoned by handlers.
JB also claims military intelligence instructed loyalists to plant explosives in a Catholic bar to make it look as if the IRA had accidentally set off the bomb. It was hoped such acts would drain Catholic support for republicans.
Take it all with a grain of salt.
BRITAIN ran a covert 'dirty tricks' operation designed specifically to produce misleading intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to give the UK a justifiable excuse to wage war on Iraq.
KF goes on to accuse the British government of 'giving terrorists a mandate to abduct, interrogate and murder sources of intelligence', citing the 1999 assassination of Charles Bennett, a Belfast taxi driver who was killed for being a police informer, as an example of an agent being abandoned by handlers.
JB also claims military intelligence instructed loyalists to plant explosives in a Catholic bar to make it look as if the IRA had accidentally set off the bomb. It was hoped such acts would drain Catholic support for republicans.
Take it all with a grain of salt.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
If the PNAC was thinking ahead, they didn't think far enough into the future... like what would happen after the war.jgrahl wrote:
Are people not allowed to think ahead of time anymore?
I don’t see why(?) anyone would find it hard to conceive that a body or organization would have developed a model / ideology for the 21st century... uh... they did. But maybe they’re thinking it could not be specific enough to be in reference to Iraq. Well I find that hard to believe based upon the ideology that they wouldn’t have considered wars in: Iraq, Iran, etc.
Iraq was in FACT pummeled in 1991, eliminating Saddam did not happen under Stormin-Norman. Bush Sr. stopped him at the gates of Baghdad and left Saddam in power. This was a mistake but they (that Admin.) considered it an overall success - objective achieved. Bush Sr. left him in power, that was not any part of some (THEN) neo-con plan.
And neo-cons might not have had a Republican in Power in 2001, it just worked out that way. But that does not mean the PNAC ideology (of a PAX-America, a borderless Empire, in a Uni-polar superpower world); and planning and focus was NOT on that region and NOT specifically on Iraq as a military pushover.
When the ideology found form, legs and ears, during the Clinton Admin. - I find it hard to believe that: if they wanted to demonstrate American Muscle in a theatre of war - that a military pushover (Iraq in the region, under Saddam) was not considered. (Even though, the reality of it, was botched, the after pushover part; and disregarded the historical sectarian problems).
Iraq was in FACT pummeled in 1991, eliminating Saddam did not happen under Stormin-Norman. Bush Sr. stopped him at the gates of Baghdad and left Saddam in power. This was a mistake but they (that Admin.) considered it an overall success - objective achieved. Bush Sr. left him in power, that was not any part of some (THEN) neo-con plan.
And neo-cons might not have had a Republican in Power in 2001, it just worked out that way. But that does not mean the PNAC ideology (of a PAX-America, a borderless Empire, in a Uni-polar superpower world); and planning and focus was NOT on that region and NOT specifically on Iraq as a military pushover.
When the ideology found form, legs and ears, during the Clinton Admin. - I find it hard to believe that: if they wanted to demonstrate American Muscle in a theatre of war - that a military pushover (Iraq in the region, under Saddam) was not considered. (Even though, the reality of it, was botched, the after pushover part; and disregarded the historical sectarian problems).
Turquoise wrote:
If the PNAC was thinking ahead, they didn't think far enough into the future... like what would happen after the war.jgrahl wrote:
Are people not allowed to think ahead of time anymore?
Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-23 15:09:22)
Don't you know that all sources that go against the opinions of the administration are liberally biased?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
I just thought it was interesting but these links are probably all liberal biased; which means false.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-23 15:12:29)
Absolutely.Kmarion wrote:
I'd say Neil Mackay Loves his conspiracies.
Take it all with a grain of salt.
If it's accurate, though......
It is a shame isn't it ...funny for a country that likes to bang on about other nations human rights.Berster7 wrote:
Shame they can't be. The US is one of the few countries that doesn't follow international law.
True.Bertster7 wrote:
Absolutely.Kmarion wrote:
I'd say Neil Mackay Loves his conspiracies.
Take it all with a grain of salt.
If it's accurate, though......
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I wouldn't call it a mistake. Not entering Baghdad was a wise move. Look at the mess they're in now.topal63 wrote:
Iraq was in FACT pummeled in 1991, eliminating Saddam did not happen under Stormin-Norman. Bush Sr. stopped him at the gates of Baghdad and left Saddam in power. This was a mistake but they (that Admin.) considered it an overall success - objective achieved. Bush Sr. left him in power, that was not any part of some (THEN) neo-con plan.
Well considering they did take him out - later - I am considering it a hindsight mistake... which of course is an easy pointless judgement.Bertster7 wrote:
I wouldn't call it a mistake. Not entering Baghdad was a wise move. Look at the mess they're in now.topal63 wrote:
Iraq was in FACT pummeled in 1991, eliminating Saddam did not happen under Stormin-Norman. Bush Sr. stopped him at the gates of Baghdad and left Saddam in power. This was a mistake but they (that Admin.) considered it an overall success - objective achieved. Bush Sr. left him in power, that was not any part of some (THEN) neo-con plan.
But, really I was just showing the once-pummeled easy pushover Iraq, with Saddam in power; as a target; and that he stands out as any easy clear target for the latter developed PNAC ideas (developed during the Clinton years, partly in reaction to those Defense Spending Cuts that occurred).
Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-23 16:28:52)
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Bush planned Iraq invasion before being President?