30 Nov 09
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8384897.stm
Is this just the Obama administration using Rummy as a scapegoat to justify a further troop surge in Afghanistan?
Or is there merit in the argument that more troops should have been sent after OBL at the time when his location was known?
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by The SnapperI think "not catching OBL" may have been a deliberate strategy in 2003. If I recall correctly, Oceania never captured Emmanuel Goldstein: why would they??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8384897.stm
Is this just the Obama administration using Rummy as a scapegoat to justify a further troop surge in Afghanistan?
Or is there merit in the argument that more troops should have been sent after OBL at the time when his location was known?
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFIt's possible; but I don't buy it.
I think "not catching OBL" may have been a deliberate strategy in 2003.
Capturing OBL would not have decreased American public support for the actions in Afghanistan and/or Iraq (just as the capture of Hussein temporarily took the people's minds off the search for the WMDs and greatly increases- temporarily- for operations in Iraq).
On the contrary, it would have been a great victory for the administration's GWOT and would probably have increased popular support for other anti-terror operations.
As for whether this would have decreased international support for the morality or justification for further operations against terror, I think it's pretty clear that Bush didn't give a hoot about that sort of thing.
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76I wasn't thinking in those terms. I was thinking more along the lines of the "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" thing you have going on there in the U.S. Engendering support and keeping a population cowered and pliant are different kinds of manipulation and there's no reason to think there's only one of them going on at any given time in the domestic mindgames department of your GWOT.
Capturing OBL would not have decreased American public support for the actions in Afghanistan and/or Iraq
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28019
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76Leaving the only conclusion that stands the test of reasonableness: they were massively incompetent. (No surprise there.)
It's possible; but I don't buy it.
Capturing OBL would not have decreased American public support for the actions in Afghanistan and/or Iraq (just as the capture of Hussein temporarily took the people's minds off the search for the WMDs and greatly increases- temporarily- for operations in Iraq).
On the contrary, it would have been a great victory for th ...[text shortened]... t terror, I think it's pretty clear that Bush didn't give a hoot about that sort of thing.
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFAh, yes, hence the Emmanuel Goldstein reference.
I wasn't thinking in those terms. I was thinking more along the lines of the "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" thing you have going on there in the U.S. Engendering support and keeping a population cowered and pliant are different kinds of manipulation and there's no reason to think there's only one of them going on at any given time in the domestic mindgames department of your GWOT.
The only difference being that OBL and AQ are real. And, if you don't believe that, just ask our department of Truth... I mean our Department of Homeland Security. 😉
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76OBL wouldn't have been "real" anymore, in the sense I've been talking about, if the U.S. had captured him.
The only difference being that OBL and AQ are real.
And it seems likely that AQ is not "real" either - at least not in the Man From U.N.C.L.E. kind of way that much of the mainstream media has obediently depicted it because people can get their heads round Man From U.N.C.L.E. - while channel hopping and scoffing potato chips - and if it's depicted as hardly even a loose consortium of groups and cells that do their own things, then people might say... How can we have a "War" against these groups? That's daft. Shouldn't it be an international criminal investigation with lethal force supplied by the military when necessary, with legitimate trials (for the survivors of the lethal force)?
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFSpot on.
OBL wouldn't have been "real" anymore, in the sense I've been talking about, if the U.S. had captured him.
And it seems likely that AQ is not "real" either - at least not in the Man From U.N.C.L.E. kind of way that much of the mainstream media has obediently depicted it because people can get their heads round Man From U.N.C.L.E. - while channel hoppin ...[text shortened]... itary when necessary, with legitimate trials (for the survivors of the lethal force)?
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by The SnapperHey ... you conservative ... OBL's dead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8384897.stm
Is this just the Obama administration using Rummy as a scapegoat to justify a further troop surge in Afghanistan?
Or is there merit in the argument that more troops should have been sent after OBL at the time when his location was known?
03 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotCome now ... why would the most powerful army in the world completely obliterate the country that was sheltering him and not find him anywhere for eight years and still think he's alive?? It's not as big a world now as it was a few years ago.
what?!?
EDIT: "a few" meaning 50.
