f13.net forums - Fallout claims Waterthread

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 16, 2024, 07:58:07 AM

we're back, baby

Everyone is getting scared of terrorist action in their countries now. That's one reason I see this happening all of sudden. I put on it before the Nov. elections, Osama is found. They probably have him stashed in some basement in Ohio just waiting for the time to say they got him.

Quote from: Grimm

I think its more likely that everyone is getting scared of losing an election. And correct me if I'm wrong wasn't the original plan to pull out in june anyway and let the UN take over?

Well, the important concept they're saying now is: U.N. or no U.N., at that point we're all gone.

People are equating The Invasion of Iraq with The War on Terror again.

Of course, maybe Al Qaeda is actually equating The Invasion of Iraq with western imperialism and a new Christian crusade, and is pitching that point of view to disgruntled Iraqis and on-the-fence Muslims.

Damn. Just when I was feeling safer.

Quote from: Dropkicktobucket

WARSAW, Poland (AP) President Aleksander Kwasniewski, a key Washington ally, said Thursday he may withdraw troops early from Iraq and that Poland was ''misled'' about the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

This is a politically engineered article, sad to say. If you skip down a handful of paragraphs you see "He also emphasized that Poland is not about to abandon its mission in Iraq, despite his shift in tone on the question of weapons of mass destruction."

This one was so badly botched by the media that during Bush's scheduled call today with the Polish president, he had to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/19/international/europe/19CND-POLA.html">clarify that he indeed was going to keep troops in there as long as it takes to get the job done. What he had meant to get across was that he thought things were going so well that the job might be finished ahead of schedule.

And as amusing as it is to think that Osama could be safely locked away somewhere to be sprung as a trump card, Grimm, wouldn't that make Bush actually lose the election? People who don't like things Bush stands for but believe we have to keep him in to address terrorism aren't going to vote for him if they think we just got the powerup and won the game. If Osama isn't the powerup in the eyes of Americans, I don't know who is.

Quote

And as amusing as it is to think that Osama could be safely locked away somewhere to be sprung as a trump card, Grimm, wouldn't that make Bush actually lose the election? People who don't like things Bush stands for but believe we have to keep him in to address terrorism aren't going to vote for him if they think we just got the powerup and won the game. If Osama isn't the powerup in the eyes of Americans, I don't know who is.

That's why timing is crucial. For a couple weeks to a month after OBL is captured, everyone will be in "High Five" mode. Go Team, rah rah, way to get the big win. During that time, Bush will be a sure win. After a month or two, people will begin to think about what Bush is actually doing, and take a closer look at the Patriot Act, etc, and then Bush will be vulnerable.
So look for the "capture" to take place in mid-October.

If Osama does get captured within a week or 2 of the election then its going to be an automatic win for Bush for sure.

And I really wouldnt be surprised if it happened either...

Oh no. Whatever shall we do without the support of Honduras.

So, if all foreign troops are gone in June, we're looking at about July for the Iraqi puppet government to fall?

Quote from: Romp

If Osama does get captured within a week or 2 of the election then its going to be an automatic win for Bush for sure.

The thing is, I hear that from so many people that I feel like the opposite has to be true. Maybe it's a stupid gut feeling I have, but when it feels like everyone thinks someone's lying out his ass, then it makes no sense to me that they would all be fooled by it.

Bah, I dunno. I just really think it would do much more harm than good.

Let's say you really did have Osama in a bathroom somewhere and you could let him out and show him to the world whenever you want. If you time it really close to the election it looks even more highly suspicious, and if you time it further away the media has a good chance of making it look like you're the lying cheating bastard you are.

On the other hand, the media has been bizarrely spinning and not spinning things to the point that you can't really guess where it's going to end up. The media was practically http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_20-3-2004_pg7_43">crapping itself to say we were going to get a key Al-Qaeda man in Pakistan at the same time it did this Poland thing. It's really up in the air what the people and the media would think or say if Bush pulled Osama out of a trick sleeve.

I mean, I only wish it were as simple as "Bush gets the powerup and wins the game", then I wouldn't be going crazy trying to figure out what I ought to believe.

Quote from: Grimm

Everyone is getting scared of terrorist action in their countries now.

Not directly. Everyone is getting scared of losing votes.

Admittedly a few of the votes people are worried about losing are from people who *are* now scared of being bombed; but mostly it's because significant numbers of people are starting to worry that the war might be lost.

Victory conditions for iraq have nothing to do with Saddam or WMD - victory conditions are a broadly democratic, stable, and pro-western government in the country. If they are achieved, everyone will support the war in the long term, if they aren't then they won't. Keeping up support for wars and maintenance of coalitions is entirely about being seen to be winning.

Even in the UK (a country whose populace has never been against a war in living memory - simply because no-one can remember us actually losing one) the lead the pro-war view has in the opinion polls is down to a few points. This is because people fear the 'war' will be lost. They might be wittering on about terrorism (surely nobody seriously believes that the madrid bombers wouldn't have bombed *someone* regardless of iraq?) or about bizarre UN legalism (because when judging the morality of invasion, it's really so important what various dictators in sub-sahran africa or the middle east think?); but the reason actual voters will change their mind, and so the reason politicians will look for a way to change position, is entirely about a fears over when/if we'll get to a positive conclusion in iraq.

Quote

And correct me if I'm wrong wasn't the original plan to pull out in june anyway and let the UN take over?

Not really - the idea is to hand sovreignty over to random_iraqis_01 in june, and hang around till they say it's ok to go home.

If it's a good iraqi government the risk is the coalition troops stay there for a gazillion years getting bombed while we all pay tax to support an iraqi military till forever.

If it's an evil iraqi government the risk is the troops get asked to leave and we all ending up paying tax to support an iraqi military till forever while probably failing to make the situation across the middle east any more stable. This is naturally still no worse a security position for ourselves or the iraqis than where we started - but it costs us more.