Nsa Director Odom Dissects Iraq Blunders

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, May 1, 2008.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Former National Security Agency Director Lt. General William Odom dissected the strategic folly of the Iraq invasion and Bush Administration policies in a major policy speech- America’s Strategic Paralysis, at Brown University for the Watson Institute for International Studies. "The Iraq War may turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history. In a mere 18 months we went from unprecedented levels of support after 9-11..to being one of the most hated countries…Turkey used to be one of strongest pro-US regimes, now we’re so unpopular, there’s a movie playing there- Metal Storm, about a war between US and Turkey. In addition to producing faulty intel and ties to Al Qaida, Bush made preposterous claim that toppling Saddam would open the way for liberal democracy in a very short time...SOURCE.

    Not real found of his internationalist views but he did come out and admit "our" governemt's use of terror and of course the hypocricy of those who use terrorism as a tool fighting a "war against terrorism."

    Then there's this...

    A variety of current and former high-level officials have recently warned that the Bush administration is attempting to instill a dictatorship in America, and will itself carry out a fake terrorist attack in order to obtain one.

    Full Article...


    Is there anyone out there who still believes "our government" would never resort to terrorism to get what it wants?

    Apologies for interupting all the normal leftie vs rightie fantasies for a minute.
     
    #1 poncho, May 1, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2008
  2. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Nobody even wants to defend the government's use of terrorism? C'mon what ever happened to all those loyal Bush 30 percenters who'd defend anything the state did?

    Did they all turn into Obama bots?
     
  3. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you talking about in regards to terrorism :confused:
     
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Do you approve of it's use?
     
  5. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    No...but when did the USA use terrorist means? sounds like a bunch of "conspiracy theory" trash to me...
     
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    No oh no. There's no buts about it. Either you are for or against it's use. So which is it?
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783

    Why dont you quit playing the gotchya game and answer his question or just ignore it one.
     
  8. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    No he's adding conditions on his answer. Either he's for it or against it. I'm trying to find out what he's asking about "regards to terrorism". I have to know that before I can anwser his question. Can ya dig it?

    Besides Rev he just read what a three star general said about the government's use of terrorism and maybe he even went through some of the links at George Washington blog. I dunno all that but is he calling a three star general a "conspriacy theorist". Is that supposed to make the fact that our government is guilty of the same tactic it accuses others of all disappear?

    The magical words of the hopelessly underinformed aren't going to change the facts so, his attempt to pre qualify his answer shows me that he has no idea of what our government has done in the past but is more than willing to try to excuse it by muttering the magic words.

    Either he's for the use of terrorism or he isn't. Either he's willing to face the truth or he's isn't. I'm betting "isn't" because "is" brings along citizenship's responsibilities along with it.
     
    #8 poncho, May 2, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2008
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783

    I cant see a "condition" what I see is a question that works toward trying to understand what your underlying implication is. It seems to be that the US is taking part in terrorism. That is what his "but' was about. Can you answer that question?
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I edited my post to try.
     
  11. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Anyways the bottom line is "our" government by it's own definition has and is engaging in terrorism. See the U.S.A. Patriot Act (s) for the definition.

    And all the people say amen but we're the "good guys" so our use of terrorism is for the good of the country and the world. Which is basically aiding and abetting terrorists by silence or consent.

    Is that what you intended to do webdog? Try and make excuses for state sponsored terrorism because the real terrorists are our own politicians?

    So how about now...are you for the use of terrorism or against it? No "buts" you're either for it or against it.
     
    #11 poncho, May 3, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2008
  12. NiteShift

    NiteShift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, what terrorism? Neither you, nor Gen Odom, or the article says. Practically any military actions could be considered as terroristic by somebody.

    As far as Gen Odom's expertise re: 'Blunders in Iraq' goes, let’s point out that Gen. Odom has no experience in the Middle East, and in fact has not served at all since the fall of the Soviet Union.

    As an Intelligence officer, he was the Army's expert on the Soviets. But the total collapse of the Soviet Union came as a surprise to him, though he analyzed it brilliantly after the fact. And now we’re supposed to listen to him on Iraq & Iran?


     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    Well as webdog asked you (and youhave refused to this point)I will make an attempt to try also.

    When did the US committ terrorist acts? what events are you specifically talking about ot what events is the good General talking about?

    The "but' was a caveat to abstract this particualr anwer from you and yu distorted it into somethign unrealted. Now can you anwer the question?
     
  14. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Rev with all do respect I have answered this same stupid question asked by every member on this board to dazed and lazy to look it all up on google for themselves.

    I'm getting tired of doing your homework for you like you are a bunch of kids. Over and over. You should know this stuff already. Why have I got give out free history lessons to people who should already know this stuff just to try and have a doscussion about that which really effects us?


    Webdog can do his own homework.
     
    #14 poncho, May 3, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2008
  15. NiteShift

    NiteShift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, you're not telling us how the US uses terrorism, Odom doesn't tell us. I guess accusation is good enough. If he could point out where we plant bombs in an open market in order to intentionally kill women & children, or burn prisoners alive, or behead them, then he might have something.
     
  16. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't know being wrong about military intelligence damaged a leader's credibilty in your eyes; especially on those two specific countries.
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783

    If your going to make accusations then you should be able to back them up. Apparently not.
     
  18. NiteShift

    NiteShift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    He was the one providing intelligence. Why should he be any better at it now that he's retired? Especially in a part of the world outside his expertise.


     
    #18 NiteShift, May 3, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2008
  19. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) He wasn't the sole source of intelligence: info gathering is more so a team effort than a one man show. Ergo, why should the Bush administration's intelligence team (or simply "Bush", if you prefer to be colloquial) be trusted via your lines of reasoning?

    2) The timing is irrelevant: it's entirely possible for person A to be right about something he was previosly wrong about; years, decades even, notwithstanding. The bottom line is this, you don't believe him. Fine, to each his own. But let's not pretend that there's a logical reason to put faith in his ideological counterparts when there isn't.
     
  20. NiteShift

    NiteShift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bush isn't an intelligence expert. He depends on people like Gen Odom for things like that.

    Well he's still wrong.

    Last year, he said in an interview that we should be indifferent to whatever death rates may occur as a result of immediate US withdrawal, "Because we can’t affect it. We can't make it different."

    But what if he was wrong? As it turns out he was wrong. The changed tactics in Iraq have completely turned the situation around. So why is Gen Odom continuing to beat that drum? Quite frankly, he just sounds like an angry old man who wasn't listened to.
     

Share This Page

Loading...