In case you didn't know, contingency plans at their best

[Realitycheck]

This is really no surprise. This is the government's job, to plan for such things. Even I predicted another Vietnam way back then.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070526/ap_on_go_co/iraq_missed_warnings

 

WASHINGTON - Intelligence analysts predicted, in secret papers circulated within the government before the

Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that

Iran would try to shape a post-Saddam Iraq.

 

The top analysts in government also said that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a "long, difficult and probably turbulent process."

 

..

 

"Sadly, the administration's refusal to heed these dire warnings — and worse, to plan for them — has led to tragic consequences for which our nation is paying a terrible price," said Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

[jackson33]

contingency plans are part of the system. our government has such plans lined up for just about any possible negative possibility. i find it interesting you say "secret", when giving the program.

 

maybe you should run for president if you see into the future. then again maybe you should study up a little more on the Vietnam War. you will find the same undermining of policy as today and in many cases, by the same people.

as for Iraq, i find no comparisons for cause, execution or outcome of events.

the War to liberate Iraq, was over years ago, like it or not we one that little conflict. we are however in a war on terror, or i prefer to say War on Radical Islam. we stay in Iraq, to allow time for government of that country to stand on its own. this is not a new policy, and we remain in a good many places around the world, for the same purpose. in these places, it was no less turbulent and the outcome will in the end be the same.

[Realitycheck]

Don't get me wrong. I didn't say "secret". I'm also not saying that there never is a cause for war, but this is not necessarily a fight against terrorism. This is a fight against people who are fighting so hard simply because 10 million Palestinians were told to take a hike after WW2, without even taking into consideration relocation plans or remunerations, much less their own beliefs, regardless of all of the fiction associated with most people's beliefs. But I guess they don't really matter since they are Palestinians. Oh yeah, this particular war is against terrorists who are fighting about how they are the rightful heirs to control Islam since they were the clergy at the time that Mohammed died, rather than Mohammed's bloodline which didn't produce a male heir that lived to tell the tale since all they did all of the time was fight for their right to be the beast of revelation. Kind of funny how the clergy changed a bunch of Mohammed's decrees almost immediately after he died. Sounds like they have really had their act going on.

 

So I give you history.

[jackson33]

my response to you was on you first post. your current post and the first would seem to me, be from different people...

 

after WW II many things changed, for obvious reasons. i am sure your aware of Germany being split and many countries being told what and whom they were part of. Israel, i guess your problem, was established and given national status. treaties were made between countries and even an international entity formed to give voice to all nations. the Palestinian people, were part of many nations in the mid-east and still are.

 

the arguments with in the Islamic Nations are not concerned with any peoples rights. they for reason of ideological or religion, want the Jewish people gone, or trying to upset what was established 60 years ago. the actual reasonings pre-date WW II or for that matter WW I.

 

Islam and all religions that formed early in history preached and practice terrible acts on others. IMO, all but the Islamic fundamentalist have moved on into the current social structure. Of the 1.3 to 1.5 BILLION, i worry just what number are in that group and it could be more than most think...if i am understanding you, you feel the rightful heirs to the original Islam are these terrorist, then i have no answer.

[Realitycheck]

No, I am not saying the rightful heirs to Islam are the terrorists. I don't know all of the intricate details of Islamic law, but I read somewhere that Shias (followers of the descendants of Mohammed, albeit his daughter) are considered heretics according to the ruling Islamic law in Mecca, still today. Sounds like a really good way to keep the peace.

[jackson33]

Islamic law does not treat women very well. the religious rhetoric even worse.

 

your trying to get me into attracting old age religion, which i will not do as i feel they were in general all bad. when it comes to modern day differences of the various factions, unless the nation is set up under western law or if you prefer are under Islamic Law, then they are the same. Iraq under Saddam, in the later years was under the western law system.

 

if keeping the peace, means destruction of groups or as in Saddam, then i oppose the notion.

[John Cuthber]

Whatever the pros and cons of Islamic law or the invasion of Iraq, that post doesn't say anything at all about contingency plans.

A contingency plan is a description of what you plan to do if something goes wrong. Just saying "this will be slow and hard" isn't any sort of plan at all.

 

I wonder if GWB had a "plan B", but that post has nothing to do with it.

Imagine the "war" had gone according to plan. That warning would still exist. All it shows is that sometimes people guess the future correctly and sometimes they don't. Unfortunately, in this case it looks like GWB and co didn't.