Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

THEY DID NOT JUST SAY THEY HAD NO PLAN FOR FAILURE!!!!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:23 PM
Original message
THEY DID NOT JUST SAY THEY HAD NO PLAN FOR FAILURE!!!!!
Edited on Thu Jan-11-07 03:25 PM by originalpckelly
OMG! :nuke: :grr:

This has been the consistent problem throughout this war! These fuck heads never have a contingency plan.

SecDef Gates was asked if they had specific consequences for al-Maliki should he fail by Rep. Silvestre Reyes. (This was the House Armed Services Committee, hearing on the new Iraq plan.) Rep. Reyes even offered to go into a closed session if they were unable to say if they had consequences publicly.

Gates flat out said they had not thought about consequences for al-Maliki, and that they were focusing on the current plan and its success. He said they'd create a plan when it happened. They, once again, have not planned in case of failure.

It's like saying you'll go and buy a fire extinguisher when the fire breaks out, instead of keeping one handy. It's like not putting in fire alarms, until the fire breaks out. Or like not having fire sprinklers installed until the fire starts. It's like saying we don't need a fire department, and will only organize one when a fire actually breaks out.

That's the problem, you can't just whip up a fire department in the time needed to respond to a fire.

We can't just come up with a new plan on the fly for failure.

It's stupid to not plan in case there is failure, especially when we've seen it happen so many times before in Iraq. Four years of this problem, and we still haven't learned our lesson. Just a bunch of damn fools, and they're playing with the lives of American soldiers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:24 PM
Original message
The same plan
The Germans had for Stalingrad, and we all know how that turned out, don't we.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. they had no plan period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. FWIW
I don't think they mean anything they say anymore. I think they're just stringing words together and using them as shields.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's the same thinking they had about the '06 election
They had no "contingency plan" -- McCain said he'd "kill himself" (WTF?) if the Dems gained control. They really, really, really, are such "true believers" that they don't even ENTERTAIN the possibility of an outcome other than what they expect ... their myopia will continue to spell their downfall (IMHO).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. Condi said that at the hearing too.. No plan "B". . . n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. I heard Gates answer to what if they don't perform what are the consequences
He said, (paraphrased) "Well, then we'll have to go back at them hard and take another look at things."

Q: But what if they don't? What then? Are you prepared to pull our troops?

G: Well, we'll have to go back and take another look at things. duhhhhhhh.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. It's so fucking stupid...
and so many people's lives are on the line. How hard would it be to think about the consequences?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. The fact is, they are not in control of things
Bushetals have given the "impression" that he/we have been in control and we're not at all. One thing I'm STILL not hearing anyone talk about is what exactly was the fu*king agreement between Iraq/Iraq that was worked out just before Maliki met with Bush in Jordan!? It's gotten completely lost!

I've got a bad gut feeling that our hands are tied and we either accept that we'll be contributing to ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, or Iraq openly joins with Iran and fights the U.S. troops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frustratedlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. Well, I hate to bring this up, but................
We don't seem to have a plan for the "failure" we have in front of us, either. Granted, the procedure was put there by our forefathers, but we seem to have lost our nerve.

I hear what you are saying. I'm surprised Gates admitted it, though. Well, I change that statement. Nothing surprises me with this group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Imagine if someone said to you:
"Aw no, we're not going to buy fire extinguishers until the fire breaks out. We're going to focus on the building not catching on fire."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. They have no backup plan because....
they have no intention of leaving and will sacrifice whoever and whatever it takes to ensure they stay there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ToolTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Because they make their money and scare people by staying.
So they plan to stay. Failure is their success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. The PNAC plan is the ONLY plan
and will stay the ONLY plan of the bush cabal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. That's the way they have been playing it. Look at the whole picture,
They only moves they make are steps to more chaos.

While we are cautious to give them the benefit of the doubt, they chip away at our civil rights, use our good civic minded citizens to stay off their business opponents, and steal US resources and national treasury. These are slimy businessmen who have used the power of government to corrupt and embezzle our great Country.

THey have formed an infrastructure that has fail safes for their safety. We must take all steps to stop them now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
11. As usual, they think if they say it, it's reality.
All they have to do is say it and pray hard enough and it will happen. No need to get dirty actually thinking about things.
They ignore the professional soldiers' advice.
They fire the dissenters.
They can only contemplate two options: Stop or go. No turns.
The true objective is gradually coming to light: We can't leave because we don't control the oil yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BonnieJW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. I thought the Dems had no plan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
15. Condi avoided that question from Kerry this morning.
And basically said the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevolutionStartsNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
16. There's some fishy bullshit going on...they can't be that stupid
Even the most basic manager or executive knows you have to have plans in place for at least some failures.

As a consultant I see a lot of poorly run companies that do little or no planning. My job is to help them see the importance of preventive action, planning, and risk analysis. Surely there are people in the government far smarter than I am, who are doing this.

On the other hand, it's not a stretch to imagine that this type of risk analysis and contingency planning is actually being done by some smart people in some departments and then ignored by the higher-ups, whose plan seems to be nothing more than "hope for the best."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. No, there don't appear to be any.
That's the problem. It looks like this plan was really made by the neo-cons, and they never exit their false reality to recognize that things don't always turn out as planned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
17. I honestly don't think they ever had a plan
in terms of failure/success as normally defined in a time of "war"

Other than stealing the resources(of both Iraq and America), fear-mongering to control the Americans, and Iraq as a centrally located staging area for other ventures, what happens to Iraq itself, or its people, was never really a consideration - as long as the agenda was going smoothly, and they could purchase a puppet government to aid in their agenda, "spreading democracy" was just a handy phrase to silence critics.

See, if a democratic Iraq was the goal, then failure would be not establishing democracy...and with such a well defined goal, there are well defined strategies...

International law governs how an occupying authority goes about establishing a stable govt - the responsibilities of the occupying authority are clearly spelled out....that the US claims it is not occupying Iraq and that Iraq has a sovereign govt. just further proves that "spreading democracy" is not now and never has been an actual goal...because the US has then removed itself from its responsibilities and obligations has an occupying authority when it pretend Iraq is sovereign because the US has never acted in a manner consistant with international law regarding Iraq.

Bush just needed excuse after excuse to cover up the real agenda for invading Iraq...he never planned to stablize Iraq for Iraq or do anything remotely decent for Iraq...Iraq was and is the handy victim...a victim that will continue to be victimized until Bush leaves office - if he can get away with it.

Bush is protecting the interests of others...not Iraq.

There can be no plan for failure when "winning", as winning is normally defined, was never the goal

Well, none that makes sense but I know what I was trying to say...lolol





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-11-07 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
19. THE PLAN IS TO LOOT THE TREASURY AND HAND TO HALLIBURTAN
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

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.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC