• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Declassified Key Judgements of the NIE

Iriemon said:
OK OK I conced and agree with you! Public announcement: Proud American and I both agree we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq.

So what the hell are we doing there if Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorists?


lol. nice try.

ill give you an A for effort.

can we not be fighting both terrorists, and guerillas?

surely thats not possible
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Actually the report clearly illustrates that Iraq is THE central front in the war on terror and that a cut and run strategy would be a disaster and that if we do achieve a stable Democracy there it will spell a death nell for the jihadist movement.

Please post evidence of this from the report.
 
Proud American and I both agree we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq.

Correction. We are not fighting anything but each other. It's our troops that are not fighting terrorists in Iraq. Not us. We are at the mall.
 
Alex said:
Please post evidence of this from the report.

Sure thing here's what the NYT's didn't tell you:


 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Sure thing here's what the NYT's didn't tell you:


[/SIZE]

Those are conditional statements that are not based on fact, only theory. We cannot know for sure that they will actually happen.

From the same report, some things the report did not based on conditions:


Also, just something interesting from the article:


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060926/ap_on_go_co/terrorism_intelligence_30
 
Alex said:
Those are conditional statements that are not based on fact, only theory. We cannot know for sure that they will actually happen.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060926/ap_on_go_co/terrorism_intelligence_30

No they were assessments not theory just like the entire report was an assessment hence this stament:

"Allthough we cannot measure the spread with precision........."

The report clearly illustrates that the war in Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, a victory there would sound the death toll for the jihadists, and that a cut and run strategy would spell disaster.
 
If's, maybe's and probably's sound more like speculation to me.

I love ya ToT, but I think you picked a bad horse on this race.

Anyways, you guys have a good night. I'm gonna go soak my elbow.

Let me know how things turn out.
 
Captain America said:
If's, maybe's and probably's sound more like speculation to me.

I love ya ToT, but I think you picked a bad horse on this race.

Anyways, you guys have a good night. I'm gonna go soak my elbow.

Let me know how things turn out.

Where do you see maybe's, probably's, or if's in the following two passages taken directly from the report?

 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya but they left out the parts about having a percieved victory in Iraq encouraging the jihadists to carry out attacks elsewhere and that if we win the war in Iraq it will spell a death nell for the Jihadists.
The report itself is not even completely declassified. The white house only declassified bits and pieces.
The other parts do not discredit what the major new outlets reported on - being the more worrisome and troubling.
 
ProudAmerican said:
dont ya just love when they leave out those pesky, insignificant, minor details.
Yes, conditions that are mostly hypothetical with IF's.
 
jfuh said:
The report itself is not even completely declassified. The white house only declassified bits and pieces.
The other parts do not discredit what the major new outlets reported on - being the more worrisome and troubling.

It's what the major news outlets left out which is the real story it was obviously a pre-election leak done for political purposes, the key judgements of the report are declassified, and the parts that aren't declassified are classified for a reason IE to protect sources and the methods by which we gather intel.
 
jfuh said:
Yes, conditions that are mostly hypothetical with IF's.

Where is there an if in the following two sections?




The report clearly states that the war in Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, that a victory there will sound the death toll for the jihadists, and that a cut and run strategy would be an unmitigated disaster.

For me the report is a clear affirmation of the Presidents stay the course policy and is a total repudiation of the Democrats cut and run strategy.
 
Last edited:

You could change the word "should" with "if" and it has the same meaning. They are synonyms.

Definition of "should": If; in case of

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/should
 
Alex said:
You could change the word "should" with "if" and it has the same meaning. They are synonyms.

Definition of "should": If; in case of

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/should

The whole report is an assessment, and; furthermore, are you suggesting that a better way to obtain a stabile government in Iraq would be to cut and run? And if not are you suggesting that it is impossible to obtain a stabile Democracy in Iraq?

The point really is that the Dems strategy of cut and run is bullshit and their assertion that the war in Iraq is separate from the war on terror is ridiculous.

Again this is a reaffirmation of the President's stay the course policy and a repudiation of the Democrats cut and run strategy.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Where is there an if in the following two sections?
Um, "should" is itself the speculative and hypothetical that I was pointing out.
Semantics again tot?

STAY THE COURSE TILL WHAT TOT! I'm sick and tired of ppl like yourself who constantly say stay the course stay the course. STaying the course is not a strategy when there is no course to begin with. When will you get it through your thick skull that there is NO COURSE. Which is why soldiers are getting slaughtered meaninglessly.
 

Why do I bother?
 

Conservatives do not care about the troops, only their own selfish agendas.
 
Alex said:
Conservatives do not care about the troops, only their own selfish agendas.
I must detest. Conservatives do - See Goldman
Also
These guys here such as tot? They want to change established tradition and policies, create social unrest, demolishing established institutions and want abrupt change.
They are not conservatives. Saying they are conservatives does not make them one. THey are the complete opposite of a conservative as they conserve nothing.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Where do you see maybe's, probably's, or if's in the following two passages taken directly from the report?

[/COLOR][/B]

I took the liberty to highlight the "if's and maybes" for ya.


The estimate allows evrybody to cherry pick parts to validate their position. Only problem, the way it reads, the war lovers are stuck with speculation to pick from yet the war haters are given more facts for ammuntion. A far cry from "you liberals are gonna eat your words when it gets declassified" don't you think? :mrgreen:

Like I said, you just picked a bad horse in this race but what else would a loyal Republican do? No harm done. Loyalty is a good trait.

If you really want a tip on a winning horse, dog out the democrats for not getting behind voter ID. That's a winner there. :smile:

Glad I could be some help! :2wave:
 
Last edited:

All of that, and this report was written last April, long before Iraq went to total ****. Just the same, all you got to do is stamp an elephant on a turd, and TOT will spend at least two days trying to polish it.
 
Y'all can go on and on about "if" this and "maybe" that in this useless report all day long, but it seems Glenn Reynolds has it right:


The only useful thing about this report is the fodder it provides for all those partisans of all persuasions seeking to differentiate between shades of grey.
 

That about sez it all.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
All of that, and this report was written last April, long before Iraq went to total ****. Just the same, all you got to do is stamp an elephant on a turd, and TOT will spend at least two days trying to polish it.

Well considering that the NIE talked about killing Zarqawi as a key priority I'd say that things have gotten better, even Talabani says that the car bombings have dropped from 10-14 car bombings a day in Baghdad to now between 1 and 4.