Major Terrorist Threat in UK-US discovered

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I don't see it as a forgiving....I think we have a pretty good understanding of them already.

Really? Did Cheney have a good understanding of them over a year ago when he said that the insurgency was in its last throes? Did we have a good understanding when we failed to send enough troops at the onset or failed to secure the weapons that were there?

No, I think there was room for improvement in our understanding, and still is.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

No, I think there was room for improvement in our understanding, and still is.

There is always room for more understanding. I don't necessarily think that a lack of complete understanding means action should not be taken. Otherwise action is never taken.

And in terms of understandnig, I meant motivation, not tactics or not making mistakes. Uderstanding who the enemy is is different than having complete knowledge of what they will do or the exact adjustments that will be made.

Some WWII general...was it Eisenhower?...said every battle plan is good until you engage the enemy (or something like that).

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

And in terms of understandnig, I meant motivation, not tactics or not making mistakes. Uderstanding who the enemy is is different than having complete knowledge of what they will do or the exact adjustments that will be made.

That's all fine except that Bush's daddy wrote many years earlier why we didn't invade Iraq after Kuwait. Every reservation he had proved to be accurate. It's one thing to not know how the enemy is going to respond. It's quite another to have that information before you, then disregard it when it puts a damper on your preconceived plans.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

That's all fine except that Bush's daddy wrote many years earlier why we didn't invade Iraq after Kuwait.

This is true. However, in light of the intelligence (and I'll admit it wasn't accurate assuming that you admit it was from intelligence services all over the world, not just ours), I wonder if the invasion would have seemed worth the risk to the elder Bush.

edited to add: I'm still not convinced that the Russians didn't help the Iraqis move the stuff to Syria in the weeks preceding the invasion, but that's another story.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I wonder if the invasion would have seemed worth the risk to the elder Bush.

Being that he seemed to have a much better grasp of foreign policy and had more of an ability to see the big picture, I highly doubt it. But we'll never know for sure, I suppose.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

edited to add: I'm still not convinced that the Russians didn't help the Iraqis move the stuff to Syria in the weeks preceding the invasion, but that's another story.

And they call us conspiracy theorists.

Seriously though, what would the motivation have been, in your opinion, to do something this bold right after 9/11?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Seriously though, what would the motivation have been, in your opinion, to do something this bold right after 9/11?

Are you speaking in terms of the Russians helping Iraq move stuff to Syria?

Iraq spent lots of money on Russian tech. The cash poor Russians are willing to sell them anything. I think much of the equipment being used was Russian and that in the light of sanctions against Iraq the Russians could not afford the international and diplomatic black eye of the Iraqis getting caught with it.

In looking at the oil for food program where money earmarked for humanitarian purposes was spent on French and Russian munitions, I don't find it my scenario hard to believe at all.

Much easier to believe than the US government orchestrating 9/11.