Iraq was to be the first of seven country in five years

[mcteethinator]

"Seven countries in five years" | Salon

While the Bush White House promotes the possibility of armed conflict with Iran, a tantalizing passage in Wesley Clark's new memoir suggests that another war is part of a long-planned Department of Defense strategy that anticipated "regime change" by force in no fewer than seven Mideast states. Critics of the war have often voiced suspicions of such imperial schemes, but this is the first time that a high-ranking former military officer has claimed to know that such plans existed.
The existence of that classified memo would certainly cast more dubious light not only on the original decision to invade Iraq because of Iran.
In "A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor and Country," published by Palgrave Macmillan last month, the former four-star general recalls two visits to the Pentagon following the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

Wesley Clark: I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today."

And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir."

The irony!

 

[Diogenes]

Seven countries in five years? Iraq has already eclipsed the time spent in Vietnam and WWII. It won't be long before we have spent more time in Iraq than both of these wars combined. If this plan is really on the table, then the 'seven countries in five years' really typifies how this Iraq quagmire has been handled from the get go.

 

[Engyo]

I think maybe you need to recheck your history regarding the Vietnam War.......even if we only go from Johnson onward to the removal of most troops, 1965 to 1973, eight years, still eclipses our time spent to date in Iraq and Afghanistan. Based on current projections, I agreee we will eventually pass tht mark, but we haven't as of yet.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir."

Smells like BS to me.

 

[mcteethinator]

Smells like BS to me.

it's Wesley Clark. I would take his claims as legit.

 

[ALifetimeToWaitFor....]

it's Wesley Clark. I would take his claims as legit.

Hes not going to devulge classified information like this. Hes a solider.

 

[mcteethinator]

Hes not going to devulge classified information like this. Hes a solider.

Well he was obviously lying in his memoirs then.

 

[Comprehend]

it's Wesley Clark. I would take his claims as legit.

Here is a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy.

Take notes class.

PS. Was Afghanistan a bonus? like the bakers dozen thingy?

 

[mcteethinator]

Here is a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy.

Take notes class.

PS. Was Afghanistan a bonus? like the bakers dozen thingy?

I just see no reasons for Wesley Clark to lie, especially since he's a high-ranking general. Why would be outright lie in his memoir?

 

[Sunstone]

Here is a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy.

Take notes class.

This one seems to me like a legitimate appeal to authority, rather than a fallacy. Why are you calling it a fallacy? Isn't Clark a legitimate authority on the conversations he's had?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I just see no reasons for Wesley Clark to lie, especially since he's a high-ranking general. Why would be outright lie in his memoir?

Luchre! Paid appearances, and books sell better when they contain controversy. You don't think he wrote it for his health, do you?

 

[Comprehend]

I just see no reasons for Wesley Clark to lie, especially since he's a high-ranking general. Why would be outright lie in his memoir?

That is fine if you would like to think that way.

I'll just continue to point out that it is a logical fallacy to do so.


PS. LOTS of people lie all the time in their books to make themselves look good or other people to look bad... welcome to real life.

 

[Comprehend]

This one seems to me like a legitimate appeal to authority, rather than a fallacy. Why are you calling it a fallacy? Isn't Clark a legitimate authority on the conversations he's had?

The fallacy is that he is claiming Clark is telling the truth because he is Wesley Clark.

He actually said it two different ways:

I just see no reasons for Wesley Clark to lie, especially since he's a high-ranking general.

it's Wesley Clark. I would take his claims as legit.

Both statements are textbook fallacies.

They both claim that he is telling the truth because of who he is.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Both statements are textbook fallacies.

Do you have a NAME for these fallacies?

They both claim that he is telling the truth because of who he is.

So? When I hear Shrub, I know that much of what he spews is due to either lying or ignorance. That comes from my experience with previous statements of his: he is not trustworthy. There is no logical fallacy in trusting a person who has yet to deceive you.

BTW, I am no fan of Clarke, but I don't see your fallacy.

 

[Comprehend]

Do you have a NAME for these fallacies?

see post #8

So? When I hear Shrub, I know that much of what he spews is due to either lying or ignorance. That comes from my experience with previous statements of his: he is not trustworthy. There is no logical fallacy in trusting a person who has yet to deceive you.

BTW, I am no fan of Clarke, but I don't see your fallacy.

Sorry that you aren't familiar with logical fallacies, life makes a lot more sense when you understand logic.

Feel free to educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority



PS. It is really comical that you are have this insane compulsion to drag Bush into everything. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything but LOGIC. Every thread is not supposed to be about your desperate hatred of the President.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Sorry that you aren't familiar with logical fallacies,

This is a presumption on your part and the logical fallacy known as the Strawman.

life makes a lot more sense when you understand logic.

Here we have a red herring.

Feel free to educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

The Nizkor project is so much nicer.

PS. It is really comical that you are have this insane compulsion to drag Bush into everything. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything but LOGIC. Every thread is not supposed to be about your desperate hatred of the President.

Here we have a hasty generalization as well as poisoning the well. Perhaps you are in need of another look at those fallacies, unless of course you are trying to include as MANY as possible in one post. You have me beat on that score!

FWIW, I do not hate Shrub, but I despise everything that he stands for. Not that I think you are concerned with accuracy here, but sometimes it's good to clear the air.

 

[Comprehend]

This is a presumption on your part and the logical fallacy known as the Strawman.Here we have a red herring.The Nizkor project is so much nicer.Here we have a hasty generalization as well as poisoning the well. Perhaps you are in need of another look at those fallacies, unless of course you are trying to include as MANY as possible in one post. You have me beat on that score!

FWIW, I do not hate Shrub, but I despise everything that he stands for. Not that I think you are concerned with accuracy here, but sometimes it's good to clear the air.

Translation:

Waaa waa waaa :sad4:


You have a difficult time admitting you are wrong. :yes:


Was I right about the logical fallacy or not?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Translation:

Waaa waa waaa :sad4:

As a Christian, how do you justify supporting a war monger? How do you deal with the utter hypocrisy of supporting someone who is the antithesis of "peace and love"? This is a non sequitur in my eyes, and I cannot comprehend it. Do you feel that hate and aggression are Christian values? Do you feel that "turn the other cheek" should be ripped out of the New Testament? If not, how do you justify an Administration who prides itself in a pre-emptive strike based on WOMDs which were myths fabricated and promulgated by Shrub et al?

You have a difficult time admitting you are wrong.

Especially when I am right.

Was I right about the logical fallacy or not?

You were indeed wrong and appear to lack the capacity for the critical thinking required to reveal this to you.

 

[Comprehend]

As a Christian, how do you justify supporting a war monger? How do you deal with the utter hypocrisy of supporting someone who is the antithesis of "peace and love"? This is a non sequitur in my eyes, and I cannot comprehend it. Do you feel that hate and aggression are Christian values? Do you feel that "turn the other cheek" should be ripped out of the New Testament? If not, how do you justify an Administration who prides itself in a pre-emptive strike based on WOMDs which were myths fabricated and promulgated by Shrub et al? Especially when I am right. You were indeed wrong and appear to lack the capacity for the critical thinking required to reveal this to you.

I think everyone and their dog is able to see that is a textbook appeal to authority. Sorry you aren't able to understand it. I can't help you get smarter.


As for the lame diatribe about supporting Bush, I'll point out again that you have a pathetic problem with trying to drag the President into every argument. The President has absolutely nothing to do with whether the statement is a logical fallacy or not.

YOU ARE WRONG. GET OVER IT.

Please try to learn something instead of continuing to embarrass yourself. It is an obvious appeal to authority, just like I said.

Be a man and read the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

and quit :sad4: already.

 

[Comprehend]

Seven countries in five years? Iraq has already eclipsed the time spent in Vietnam and WWII. It won't be long before we have spent more time in Iraq than both of these wars combined. If this plan is really on the table, then the 'seven countries in five years' really typifies how this Iraq quagmire has been handled from the get go.

uh, you really ought to read a little history before you say silly things like this.

The WWII war with Japan began Dec. 7th 1941 and the occupation of the Japanese mainland ended in April of 1952. I'm not great at math but that looks like more than 10 years to me.

Could you tell me when our troops left Germany? (oh, that's right, they are still there). Should be any minute now though.