Riddle Me This About Iraq

[Typ0]

In light of the recent intelligence gathered in Pakistan from Al Queda operatives do you think our presence in that region has contributed to our ability to gather that intelligence? These are very detailed and well thought out plans that were nearing execution. I would suggest that our commitment and presence to the region directly contributes to our gaining that intelligence.

I understand people are upset they have loved ones and friends there. I understand we constantly see indications the war in Iraq is not over and often people are dying. But lets not forget they are dying in small numbers. That only adds to the level of heroism employed when these people give their lives to this cause. At some point you have to learn from history and these people are dying to save the lives of many others--american civilians and military personelle that may wage a more horrific war in the future that has not been thwarted.

This isn't a political discussion centered on the election and Kerry VS. Busch rhetoric. With all endeavours there are failures but there is also success gained from the efforts. IMO too many people who are against our activities in the middle east harbor a very destructive laizze fair wait and see what happens attitude. Perhaps the Clinton administration could have done more to prevent 911 but in their defense the political climate made it very difficult from them to act. 911 changed that and whatever the means we need to do what we need to do to protect ourselves.

[Dozerdog]

One could argue it goes the other way as well. The attitude of "shoot first - ask questions later" diplomacy results in a lot of death- death that the USA doesn't really appreciate- How many families in that part of the world have lost someone?

Would a poor villager turn in a terrorist to the Americans or will they clam up- even collude to keep the secret?

It's an interesting argument- they have new freedoms (if threy can express some of them without reprisal) but in a lot of cases they aren't using them. Maybe they don't want us there, maybe they are getting paid off by the bad guys- who knows.

[_Ghost_Hackers]

**** - i fell asleep by line 3 ....

[Ð]

Who's to say that these 'detailed & well thought out plans' aren't red herrings, specifically designed to throw you off the trail & create mass hysteria ?

From a media consumer's perspective (on the surface at least) it seems like their counterintelligence efforts have been very successful so far against you. Add to that an administration that has been proven to twist intelligence to hear & pass on only what it wants to hear. it's a recipe for being easly manipulated by a few smart eggs who understand which buttons to push.

[chernobylwraiths]

Weren't we already in Afghanistan and Pakistan before we invaded Iraq?

[Ð]

Afhghanistan, yes.

You may have been in Pakistan, but covertly for sovereignty/political reasons.

[Spartacus]

Originally posted by Ð
Who's to say that these 'detailed & well thought out plans' aren't red herrings, specifically designed to throw you off the trail & create mass hysteria ?

From a media consumer's perspective (on the surface at least) it seems like their counterintelligence efforts have been very successful so far against you. Add to that an administration that has been proven to twist intelligence to hear & pass on only what it wants to hear. it's a recipe for being easly manipulated by a few smart eggs who understand which buttons to push.



Exactly.

[mybills]

Originally posted by Typ0
In light of the recent intelligence gathered in Pakistan from Al Queda operatives do you think our presence in that region has contributed to our ability to gather that intelligence?

Yes, I do think that. :up:

[Typ0]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
One could argue it goes the other way as well. The attitude of "shoot first - ask questions later" diplomacy results in a lot of death- death that the USA doesn't really appreciate- How many families in that part of the world have lost someone?

Would a poor villager turn in a terrorist to the Americans or will they clam up- even collude to keep the secret?

It's an interesting argument- they have new freedoms (if threy can express some of them without reprisal) but in a lot of cases they aren't using them. Maybe they don't want us there, maybe they are getting paid off by the bad guys- who knows.


I would agree it is a shame some of the things those people have gone through. But I'm talking about what the strength our presence has to the whole region not just the country we are engaged in military conflict in...and I think a lot of the people in the region are glad Hussein is gone. Plus our military presence does put a lot of social and political pressure on the nations there because of our strength and stature. I don't want to cloud the issues but we needed to find a way to be there and do something. We were most definately shot at first and many bad Islamics and political machines have been doing a lot of shooting at our allies and ourselves for years...so I don't buy into that we shot first mentality.

Whatever it takes, no matter how rational or irrational it may seem at the time, we need to do something and we need to do it in a way that we are not seen as totally unfavorable influences culturally and politically to all of those people that have failed to receive our input from so many years. By input I mean the knowledge of what we really are about. For many years we were fighting the cold war and then that ended. Never did we make any commitment to bring knowledge of our plight to the middle east people. What was going on there was neglected by our government in terms of their propaganda not being addressed and adopting a long term strategy to fight against political and religions leaders using us as a scapegoat to build hatred and manipulate their populace.

We have a responsiblity there. We have always applied political and economic pressures to the region perpetuating the myths the people were being taught. So the message was twisted for years and now we have to utilize force to rectify some things instead of a more constructive albeit less dramatic approach. We never did our part and now we are in a bad position.

You are suggesting we continue to do nothing after years of seeing how that leaves us and additionally seeing historically how waiting and expecting the best will only prove we are dealing with people who don't rationalize the same way we do. We would be naive to formulate our approaches only based on our traditional rationale. This was proven in pre - revolutionary times when legions of then british soldiers were slaughtered by native americans with guerilla warefare because they were walking out into an open field banging drums to meet other fighters with the honor they understood.

[Typ0]

Originally posted by Ð
Who's to say that these 'detailed & well thought out plans' aren't red herrings, specifically designed to throw you off the trail & create mass hysteria ?

From a media consumer's perspective (on the surface at least) it seems like their counterintelligence efforts have been very successful so far against you. Add to that an administration that has been proven to twist intelligence to hear & pass on only what it wants to hear. it's a recipe for being easly manipulated by a few smart eggs who understand which buttons to push.

No one is to say. But why would any reasonable intelligence team not take that into consideration? I'm sure we consider that a possibility but it also does not provide cause to hamper intelligence gathering. Would you rather have to sift through some bad information to get the good or to have no information at all? So I don't see the point of that thinking that maybe it's a plant so it doesn't justify the pressure we are applying to gather the intelligence in the first place.

Maybe there is a 40% chance that it's good information and a 60% chance that it isn't. And if it's good there is only a 30% chance it will be executed at a cost of 50 billion dollars. Let's do the math. 30% of 40% is 12%...so there is a 12% chance that we lose 5 billion dollars in lives and assets. Obviously I just threw these numbers down and have no clue about the actual value. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that your arguement is flawed because you are saying what if. I have applied reasonable odds to the what ifs on each side in your favor...and the net result is the information is worth 600 million dollars. That's 12% of 5 billion dollars.