Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

J_J_

(1,213 posts)
Tue Sep 9, 2014, 05:56 PM Sep 2014

I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks,or 5 months

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.


Now what is the message there? The message is that there are known "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.



Sound familiar?

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks,or 5 months (Original Post) J_J_ Sep 2014 OP
The first part of Rumsfeld statement is "known knowns" not "no knowns." alcibiades_mystery Sep 2014 #1
sorry J_J_ Sep 2014 #3
What would war with Iraq cost? RandiFan1290 Sep 2014 #2
Don't worry, the war will pay for itself! J_J_ Sep 2014 #4
I cannot believe that we are waiting on Obama to announce another war J_J_ Sep 2014 #5
Can we expect another deluge of candy and flowers from the inhabitants? Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #6
the media showed the bombing of Iraq like it was a pretty fireworks show J_J_ Sep 2014 #7
 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
1. The first part of Rumsfeld statement is "known knowns" not "no knowns."
Tue Sep 9, 2014, 05:59 PM
Sep 2014

Jeez. At least get the tired comparison quote right.

RandiFan1290

(6,221 posts)
2. What would war with Iraq cost?
Tue Sep 9, 2014, 06:03 PM
Sep 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/01/sproject.irq.war.cost

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House is downplaying published reports of an estimated $50 billion to $60 billion price tag for a war with Iraq, saying it is "impossible" to estimate the cost at this time.

White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels told The New York Times in an interview published Tuesday that such a conflict could cost $50 billion to $60 billion -- the price tag of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

But Trent Duffy, an OMB spokesman, said Daniels did not intend to imply in the Times interview that $50 billion to $60 billion was a hard White House estimate.

"He said it could -- could -- be $60 billion," Duffy said. "It is impossible to know what any military campaign would ultimately cost. The only cost estimate we know of in this arena is the Persian Gulf War, and that was a $60 billion event."
 

J_J_

(1,213 posts)
5. I cannot believe that we are waiting on Obama to announce another war
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 04:42 PM
Sep 2014

Time for the American people to stand together and say NO!



"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025510601
 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
6. Can we expect another deluge of candy and flowers from the inhabitants?
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 04:49 PM
Sep 2014

Or, just more pissed off people at our efforts to "help"?

 

J_J_

(1,213 posts)
7. the media showed the bombing of Iraq like it was a pretty fireworks show
Fri Sep 12, 2014, 01:49 PM
Sep 2014

Forgot to show the millions killed, maimed, tortured, born with birth defects


But we are now expected to believe that the corporate media and the corporate politicians really care about Iraqis and want to help. Sure.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I can't tell you if the u...