quote:

Originally posted by Vesa The Neoconservatives consulted mainly INC (the Iraqi Opposition exiles) about the moods in the country. The INC leader Chalabi, who's Perle's old university acquaintance, was a major intelligence source. So the Neoconservatives planned the whole invasion consulting only people in their own circles, instead of going on the Arab Street to find out what really happens when Saddam's regime collapses.

see that's what i had thought earlier. we've already seen such a large rift between the Bush administration and the security council, it's highly unlikely that the Neo-cons would have wanted to consult with anyone else on this other than those who might side with them.

so now my question is, was it just over confidence they had in their anaylsts' opinions? or did they just not want to hear any "bad news"?

___________________
Palm Trees > Pine Trees , Sand > Snow

It seems that the extreme right wing's solution to every crisis is to blow up things. "Heehehe It go boom. HEhehehe."

If they bombed a nuclear reactor it would spread radiation all over the area which was bombed. If it's close to a population center that would be catastrophic.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

If they directly attack NK, I'm sure KJI would attack Japan and SK with nukes, as he proved himself to be quite an irrational person.

___________________
1+1=10

I'll post this here as well with regards to NK hehe

I actually posted here that the Pentagon had plans for bombing N. Korea, however, I argued in that posting that it was more so of a bluff or a diplomatic tactic rather than actual intent on going through with it. The fact that the Pentagon is drawing up plans in itself means nothing. It's the job of the pentagon to draw up war contingencies on nearly everything from an invasion of Canada to World War III with Russia in case such a scenario should ever arise. Plans were drawn up to bomb N. Korea in 1993 by the Pentagon under the "dovish" Clinton administration as well so it is nothing new:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story...0%255E2,00.html

And actually Syria is a whole separate issue from N. Korea because N. Korea constitutes a volatile world threat. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentagon places very close attention to that peninsula. I've always stated that no military action will be taken against Syria and I'll stand by my words until the bitter end.

And if you think that the neocons or whatever are planning military operations against N. Korea have no fear! For the almighty, all powerful PNAC has spoken:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/northkorea-041403.htm

And since Bush is their stool pidgeon, and they are the true power behind our government, hope I'm not being too sarcastic, we can rest easy knowing that military operations will never happen right ?

At any rate even head honcho Mr. Neocon himself (wolfowitz) said:

quote:

Of particular significance today, Mr. Wolfowitz poured cold water on the idea of an attack on North Korea's nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, an idea often ascribed to the administration's hawks. In March 1999, he dismissed the idea of a "neat and safe military operation, that in some antiseptic way could eliminate the North Korean nuclear problem. . . . First of all, we wouldn't know what to attack. . . . [W]e are . . . reasonably certain that there's a lot there that we don't know about and couldn't get at." Moreover, North Korean retaliation, and the resulting war on the Korean peninsula, he said, would be "absolutely devastating."



So if you're going to argue a neocon dominated US government theory then you better modify your position on what the US is gonna do next with N. Korea.

___________________
Retro ...

DaveSaenz, isn't it funny how much Saddam looks like Ron Jeremy?
Have they ever been seen together? Hmmm....


On a more serious note, if the US were to pull out of Iraq now without at least helping to establish a framework of a government, things would definitely take a turn for the worse. The phrase being thrown around is 'a presence as long as is needed, and not one day more.' That's not much margin for error.

Part of the way that the US plans to minimize its footprint is to have private companies do much of the jobs that would have once been done by the Corps of Engineers. In other words, politically-affiliated companies are getting fat contracts with little of the usual tendering process.

___________________
This is what you came for.