Nobody likes an "I told you so," but...

rocktivity

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-31-03 10:25 AM
Original message

Nobody likes an "I told you so," but...

from Laguche Is Right:

...The attacks are not only growing in frequency, but in sophistication. According to Francis Tusa, publisher of Defence Analysis, "...This isn’t random attacks--not of this size...They have got an organization. They have got targets, they have plans..."

...According to Toby Dodge, a terrorism expert,..."The attack on the Rashid was a coup for the guys who did it...it shows people that they can deploy at will..."

Ian Bruce of the British newspaper The Herald...stated, "For what the Pentagon still refers to as ‘small-cell local insurgency,’ Iraq’s resistance is remarkably persistent and increasingly effective...In the immediate aftermath of Saddam’s fall from power, the resistance was sporadic and haphazard...It has evolved into something much bigger and more lethal..."

In the months leading up to the invasion, I distincly recall DU-ers warning that while taking Baghdad would be relatively easy, the reason WHY it would be relatively easy is because the guerillas strategy would be to lie in wait and then launch the REAL war--a war that U.S. soliders have no idea of how to fight. Of course, since Georgie's claim that combat operations are over, the guerillas are being terribly inconsiderate, don't you think?

rocknation

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Skittles

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-31-03 10:29 AM
Response to Original message

1. the reason I cannot say I TOLD YOU SO

even though I have EVERY F***ING RIGHT TO, is because it makes me sound smug and righteous. And I DON'T feel that way because I know our soldiers are being picked off and that thousands of innocent Iraqi people have paid the ultimate price. And the credibility of America is DESTROYED.

I AM OUTRAGED.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rocktivity

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-31-03 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #1

5. You wouldn't be righteous, Skittles

Edited on Fri Oct-31-03 12:42 PM by rocknation

You'd just be right! And if some of us mere civilians were smart enough to deduce what the consequences of what the invasion would be, why couldn't the Bush regime? Because they didn't want to?

rocknation

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tyler Durden

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-31-03 10:30 AM
Response to Original message

2. "Time for the baby nukes, Rummy!" sez George.

Why does anyone think they were starting to come up with "theater Nuclear Weapons Strategy" and smaller nukes?

Screw the fact that the worst weapon against small cells it the BIG one. That's not the way this administration thinks.

They'll target everything except the oil, given half a chance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DS1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-31-03 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #2

3. perhaps the purpose of smaller nukes is ecological

meaning, smaller nukes wouldn't penetrate the earth as deeply with radiation, thus leaving the oil uncontaminated while leaving the surface clean of obstructions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

displacedvermoter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-31-03 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #2

4. Better to "mow them down" with as that keen srategist Trent Lott

suggested we try!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 08:32 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.