posted
No doubt it's a huge gamble, and people far more important than I will be in for an enormous credibility drop, should they be wrong, when the cards are all shown from this hand.
To sum up: One side of the argument is going to win big. One side is going to lose big.
It's all a matter of who's holding the aces.
Last night I imagined the Mother of All Conspiracy Theories. I know it's nuts, but I'd like to propose it just to get a reaction.
What if...
1. The Government Disinformation office never shut down. 2. Iraq really does have WMD, and is a threat. 3. But the Government Disinformation office has been responsible for helping to promote the belief that it isn't. 4. Because with the population of the opposition so strongly against the War, proof of Iraq as a threat would be an enormous propaganda victory for the Republicans. They could milk it for years and years. Probably at least the next eight. ("What do YOU know? You were against the Iraq War!") 5. Likewise, it would be an enormous propaganda victory for the US on the global scale.
So that the mistaken belief that Iraq is disarmed and not a threat is carefully being nurtured... just so that it can be disproven.
Nah. That's so paranoid. Only somebody REALLY devious could think of that...
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
In his address to the state type thingy tonight, it seems that Pres. Bush has given Hussien 48 hours to leave Iraq. Sounds like we find out in two days whether it's war or not.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
So, Rob, what you're saying is that Republicans are deliberately feeding mis-information that is currently resulting in a domestic split on the war, and an international split that could rupture NATO and the UN? For political gain?
Man, Republicans are a bunch of greedy, short-sighted fuck-wads.
posted
I... don't think he said that, actually. Having actually read the post, I see this little bit about just proposing a crack-pot theory just to get a reaction...
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I see, so Rob is having fantasies where Republicans control disinformation to formulate domestic and international splits that threaten NATO and the UN?
posted
I'm not saying that at all. I called it "paranoid" and "crazy," what more do you want?
No, they're not doing that.
But the results are likely to be the same.
The "split" will only last until the results are in. Then the human capacity for self-delusion will kick in, and the majority of whichever side turns out to be wrong will begin saying "Oh, but that [the side of the victor] is the side I was on all along... I was just too afraid to speak up" or something similar. That's the way these things always work. Look at postwar Germany. Look at the religious debates about what the "real Christians" were doing during the Inquisition. Even I did things that way, when I first switched allegiance from Bush I to Clinton, and when I dropped Clinton for... well, anyone)
It will only be the people who stuck their necks out this time (Like Bush, Blair, & Chirac, or, here, Myself, Cartmaniac, You, Jay, etc.) who will be in for a rise or a fall.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Suits me, ENT gets preempted here every week anyway...not that UPN has its own news service...at least, again, not here...they just show a rerun of the 6pm NBC news at 7pm.
Is it just me, or did Bush seem a little over protective of his babys...the oil wells?
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
First -- Sorry to burst your bubble, but that conspiracy theory is a year old. Still funny, though.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Am I the only one that feels the least bit troubled by the general assertion that in the end, whatever your methods for reaching a conclusion...the only thing that matters is whether you're "right" or "wrong" as judged by...well, thats a good question..judged by what?
Let's be even-handed about this, and play a little "what-if"
The best thing (for the pro side) that could happen, is the Iraq army folds like a wet paperbag (to demonstrate the weakness of Saddam's regime). Saddam manages to use a WMD (to "prove" how much of a threat he is) The American army walks in finds the proverbial "smoking gun." Plans to use terrorists against global targets with a variety of weapons. (to follow up the 9-11 attacks) Terrorists strike a few weeks later. (demonstrating the folly of waiting so long to hit Saddam)
The best thing (for the con side) is, the Iraq army folds like a wet paperbag (because that would minimise civilian casualities). Saddam manages to use a WMD (after being backed into a corner and needlessly provoked) The American army walks in and finds the proverbial smoking gun. Plans to use terrorists against global targets witha variety of weapons (in retailiation for invading Iraq) Terrorists strike a few weeks later (demonstrating the folly of unilaterally provoking the Arab world, despite world opinion)
Note the similarity when you take out the brakets. Just a thought.
I really doubt we'll find any simple answers. As you can tell, I'm getting rather disillusioned by both sides. Nonetheless, I bet that we'll probably see that reality will be even less black and white, let alone see a "big win" or a "big loss." History is rarely that simple.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Anti-American sentiment among muslim nations is growing. Moderate clerics (especially some in Pakistan) are now calling for war against the Americans. Isn't this what Osama Bin Laden wanted?
This has greater implications if the U.S. is proven wrong.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Consider how much worse it'll be if the US forces don't find the WMD's they're looking for within a reasonable amount of time. If they can't find the proof, that'll be the best-case scenario for the "cons," and it'll outrage just about everyone in the Arab world -- giving bin Laden exactly what he wants.
Also... even if Saddam does use a WMD, the most obvious target (aside from the immediate battlefield) would be Israel. And given the political situation there, I'm not sure that too many Arab populaces would shed any tears (or even be outraged) in that case. It'd end up as a "great victory" instead.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Wait a sec, if they don't find WMD, then that just means that they were too late in invading Iraq, and the terrorists have them already.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Or it would mean they were destroyed in the December 1998 air-strikes on Iraq. Remember, Osama has called Saddam "a godless leader" and an "infidel," and the only reason Muslims should support him is because "his enemy is worse."
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
