What If No Iraq Invasion ? by Jongsstraw

The US would be about, what $4 trillion less in debt, and still be respected on the world stage?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 8:12 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

'Bbout 4500 members of the US Military would still be alive, and about 25,000 unwounded and not needing medical care.

Lots of military equipment wouldn't be worn out with 5 years of deployment in the desert.

Retention and recruitment would be a lot simpler.

The budget would be closer to balanced.

Gas might cost $ 4.00 a gallon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 8:29 AM

JONGSSTRAW

I don't know if America will, or can ever get back "to normal", but I love to think about it. The 911 attack on American soil was a big event for sure, but unfortunately the team in Washington DC of Cheney & Rumsfeld were not intelligent and wise ...they chose to elevate it way beyond what it was. They were totally inept in planning our response(s). They came up with Step 2... The Battle of Iraq. This on the heels of an unfinished and dubious engagement in Afghanistan. In the 7 years since 911, I can't help to think that "another" team of political leaders would have had us in a much better situation than we are now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 8:39 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

If Bush and his boys hadn't been in such a zealous rush to invade Iraq 5 years ago, where do you think the US would be today?
... Militarily
... Economically
... Diplomatically

Militarily? Some would say "stronger than ever", but I rather doubt that. BushCo has continued the same kind of privatization of our armed forces that was begun under Reagan and really gained steam under Clinton, where they'll sell any and all military operations to the lowest bidder, leading to the rise of "corporate armies" such as Blackwater. I *do* think we'd be a whole helluva lot better off in regards to our veterans and their health care, though, but that would be a simple matter of not having 30,000 or more grievously injured soldiers straining our VA healthcare system to the breaking point and beyond.

Economically? Well, the LOW price tag put on the war is $6 trillion dollars. Of course, most of that hasn't been spent yet - it's still to come in long-term health care for wounded vets - but a good chunk of that money is lost to our economy, and gone forever. Who can say what the impact of the war has been on gas prices, but the fact of it is, oil was less than $32 a barrel when Bush took office, and less than 8 years later, it's more than $127 a barrel - a QUADRUPLING in price. And they almost hung Carter when gas went over a buck a gallon... And by the way, hang on to your hats - the mortgage crisis isn't the coal mine caving in; it's just the canary dying. The real cave-in is still coming. More and more people are driving vehicles that are well above their pay grades, and are paying down 6-, 7-, and even 8-year notes on their cars - cars that are worth less and less as the price of gas goes higher and higher. How cheap can you get a Chevy Tahoe for now? How 'bout a Ford Exhibition - er, I mean Expedition...

Diplomatically? Well, have we ever been at a lower point in terms of our international prestige? People the world over, our "friends" as well as our "enemies", feel free to now tell us to basically "Fuck Off" whenever and wherever they please, because they know full well that there's not much of shit we can do about it, given our situation in this quagmire of a war. Our leader is seen as "all hat, no cowboy" by every thinking person in the world, and they realize there's no use in trying to engage this White House in anything remotely like serious diplomatic talks. At this point, it seems that the rest of the world, not just the American people, is willing to wait it out until this lame duck is finally long gone, and good riddance. Meanwhile, all we can do is try to let the Israelis pick our fights for us...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 8:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I don't know if America will, or can ever get back "to normal", but I love to think about it. The 911 attack on American soil was a big event for sure, but unfortunately the team in Washington DC of Cheney & Rumsfeld were not intelligent and wise ...they chose to elevate it way beyond what it was. They were totally inept in planning our response(s). They came up with Step 2... The Battle of Iraq. This on the heels of an unfinished and dubious engagement in Afghanistan. In the 7 years since 911, I can't help to think that "another" team of political leaders would have had us in a much better situation than we are now.

Also, bear in mind that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, et al, completely ignored anyone with any real military expertise, unless they were telling the Administration only what it wanted to hear. Even David Petraeus, who wrote the field manual on counterterrorism, was forced to back off his estimates and his numbers, until they more closely matched what the political leaders in Washington (none of whom had ever served in combat; most of whom had never even served in uniform, or had joined and then not shown up) said they should be.

At every turn, the real military leaders were underfunded, underutilized, and cut off at the knees, and then THEY were the ones blamed for how it all went wrong...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 8:58 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

If Bush and his boys hadn't been in such a zealous rush to invade Iraq 5 years ago, where do you think the US would be today?
... Militarily
... Economically
... Diplomatically

Depends on 'why didn't invasion happen?'

I mean 'no invasion in Spring of 2003' could just as easily have been 'invasion late-spring 2003, invasion early summer 2003, etc.'

Here's my take. In the Spring of 2003 the US led coalition was joined by a strong European alliance including thousands of French troops and massive worldwide demonstrations against Saddam Hussein in nearly every nation. Russia lent its diplomatic support and China displayed casual disinterest. A new UN resolution passed without veto stating to Saddam 'leave Iraq' and authorizing 'all possible force' if they continued to refuse to comply. Saddam flees Iraq.

Fall of 2003 Bathists fall to peaceful Democratic movement. Free elections. Foriegn investments make Iraqi oil industry viable. Lower oil prices stabilize world economies. Bush is elected to a second term and we all live happily ever after.

OR...Bush is forced to back down by Democrats in Congress and French/Russian/German political pressure. France and Russia run the table on us fracturing NATO. Russia dominates its neighbors and France/Germany dominate the EU. Bush loses to Kerry in 2004. Kerry foriegn policy weakness leads to 2005 Russian invasion of Georgia. Energy crisis as Russia turns off the gas pipelines to Europe. China invades Taiwan. Japan begins military buildup. Venezuala supports insurgencies throughout the Americas including increasingly agitated immigrants in the US. Energy crisis causes economic collapse of first Europe, then America, then South America, India, and Japan. Turmoil spreads rise of violence. Terrorists spark war between Pakistan and India...nuclear war follows. Tel Aviv destroyed in nuclear blast traced to Iran. Isreal falls to Arab (Iraq, Syrian, Jordan, and various terrorist groups) assault resulting in massacre of nearly all the Jews (but not before)...Isreali nukes destroy all Arab capitals (including moderate, neutral states). Turmoil sweeps the globe. Food riots in the US. Energy riots in the US. Immigration riots in the US. Race riots in the former US. Interstate fighting in the former US. Nuclear conflict between Russia and China. Russia and former EU. Russia and former US. China and Japan. North and South Korea. Madagascar and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (who knew they had it in them...), and we all die unhappily never after.

What if's can go in any direction you want. Hell, I can give you a timeline that says the Iraq invasion was called off because of alien invasion and another where is does not happen because Iraq...never existed (literally...there is not even land there...the Persian Gulf is a much larger Persian Sea) and a really odd timeline in which the invasion did not go off because no one considered the international dateline (in that one everything is shifted by a single day directly resulting in the mass extinction of all life in approximately 347 million years and the cancellation of American Idol after a single disappointing episode).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
At every turn, the real military leaders were underfunded, underutilized, and cut off at the knees, and then THEY were the ones blamed for how it all went wrong...

There's a couple of historic regimes that have done the same thing.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:02 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

10 years us a " zealous rush " to war ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
10 years us a " zealous rush " to war ?

The Rush to the latest war with Iraq wasn't even 10 months.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:14 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
'Bbout 4500 members of the US Military would still be alive, and about 25,000 unwounded and not needing medical care.

Lots of military equipment wouldn't be worn out with 5 years of deployment in the desert.

Retention and recruitment would be a lot simpler.

The budget would be closer to balanced.

Gas might cost $ 4.00 a gallon.

You ARE aware that the military does suffer losses every year, even when there's no conflict ongoing?

Using the actual figures from the Congressional Research Service report ....., the total military deaths ( from 1980 )

For the record, here are the accurate totals for the past 26 years, including those omitted from the message above:
U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2006

1980 .... 2,392
1981 .... 2,380
1982 .... 2,319
1983 .... 2,465
1984 .... 1,999
1985 .... 2,252
1986 .... 1,984
1987 .... 1,983
1988 .... 1,819
1989 .... 1,636
1990 .... 1,507
1991 .... 1,787
1992 .... 1,293
1993 .... 1,213
1994 .... 1,075
1995 .... 1,040
1996 ....... 974
1997 ....... 817
1998 ....... 827
1999 ....... 796
2000 ....... 758
2001 ....... 891
2002 ....... 999
2003 .... 1,228
2004 .... 1,874
2005 .... 1,942
2006 .... 1,858

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_military_deaths.htm

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:35 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
10 years us a " zealous rush " to war ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Yes....it was a rush to war! I saw it myself, with my very own eyes. Bush and his circle had boxed themselves in. They placed US troops in the desert with no where to go. He placed them there to put pressure on Iraq to allow UN inspector to find the "weapons". We waited...Then one night Bush got a report from the field that the Husseins were located and could be wiped out ( presumeably from the same "intelligence" gatherers who reported WMD's). They chose to launch "shock & awe" that night. They bombed the bajesus out of Baghdad, but missed them all. Oh well ...now let's roll in the tanks I guess! The events were strategically timed to maximize the future blunder potential. A rush to invade, no plan for occupation, no plan for Baathists, no plan for police or military, no awareness of the Shiite and Sunni situation...but hey we got a great shot for the 6 o'clock news of that statue comin' down!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Jongstraw - it was even more deliberate than that. It was on a Saturday (when the news agencies wouldn't pick it up) that Bush told Hussein he, his family, and top government leaders would have to exile themselves from Iraq within 24 hours as the ONLY way to avoid war.

What that has to to with WMD and UN resolutions as a legal rationale for war is still rather hazy to me.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 11:13 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

No Iraq Invasion five years ago? Today the World would be asking why the US didn't "Do Something" about Saddam, just like they ask why the US doesn't "Do Something" about Sudan and Burma.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 11:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I think if the US hadn't put itself up as the sole freer-from-oppresive-tyrants in the world then, no one would be asking the question now. As it is, with Hussein as the 'reason' to invade Iraq people can very legitimately ask the question. Why doesn't the US invade Sudan ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 2:37 PM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
No Iraq Invasion five years ago? Today the World would be asking why the US didn't "Do Something" about Saddam, just like they ask why the US doesn't "Do Something" about Sudan and Burma.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

That's a very sobering remark. The US should learn some day to just ride things out, or even stay out. I know I never voted to make us the galliant defender of all oppressed humanity. Especially when it's not wanted or appreciated, and when it fractures and bankrupts our country.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 2:56 PM

Three words: Operation Venezuelan Freedom.

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple." -Badger

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 3:22 PM

ALLIETHORN7

Quote:
OR...Bush is forced to back down by Democrats in Congress and French/Russian/German political pressure. France and Russia run the table on us fracturing NATO. Russia dominates its neighbors and France/Germany dominate the EU. Bush loses to Kerry in 2004. Kerry foriegn policy weakness leads to 2005 Russian invasion of Georgia. Energy crisis as Russia turns off the gas pipelines to Europe. China invades Taiwan. Japan begins military buildup. Venezuala supports insurgencies throughout the Americas including increasingly agitated immigrants in the US. Energy crisis causes economic collapse of first Europe, then America, then South America, India, and Japan. Turmoil spreads rise of violence. Terrorists spark war between Pakistan and India...nuclear war follows. Tel Aviv destroyed in nuclear blast traced to Iran. Isreal falls to Arab (Iraq, Syrian, Jordan, and various terrorist groups) assault resulting in massacre of nearly all the Jews (but not before)...Isreali nukes destroy all Arab capitals (including moderate, neutral states). Turmoil sweeps the globe. Food riots in the US. Energy riots in the US. Immigration riots in the US. Race riots in the former US. Interstate fighting in the former US. Nuclear conflict between Russia and China. Russia and former EU. Russia and former US. China and Japan. North and South Korea. Madagascar and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (who knew they had it in them...), and we all die unhappily never after.

And that's where the zombies come in and eat us all, ya?
Face it; won't ever be that we can unmake this invasion, or, even better, this entire administration. No sense in worry about it.

-Danny

And there's no ring on the phone anymore
There's no reason to call I passed out on the floor
Smoked myself stupid and drank my insides raisin dry
But at the right place at the right time
I'll be dead wrong and you'll be just fine
And I won't have to quit doing fucked up shit
For anyone but me
And at the right place at the right time
It will have been worth it to stand in line
And you won't have to stop
Saying "I love cops" for anyone but me
Your private eye

The Band of the week is... Alkaline Trio

Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein.
http://www.myspace.com/otherrandomdude

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 3:47 PM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Rap,

have to say your right. Military personnel die even when there's no war on. A lot of things the military does is inherently dangerous and accidents are going to happen.

Got any figures on the number of amputees and post traumatic stress patients during that same time span?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 4:21 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think if the US hadn't put itself up as the sole freer-from-oppresive-tyrants in the world then, no one would be asking the question now. "

So when should we have gone back into our shell? After WWII? If so, then large portions of the world would enjoy the same standard of living and freedoms as North Korea or Cuba.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 4:43 PM

FLETCH2

No invasion?

Evidence would continue to be presented that thousands of Iraqi children were dying from malnutrition and disease, resulting in a rising call for the lifting of UN sanctions.

Sanctions would be lifted and eventually France and Russia would be able to exercise their oil concessions "under proper international supervision."

Six months later Iraq demands that the US/UK patrolled "no fly" zones be lifted. Russia and China back the motion in the security council, France abstains under US pressure and the US has to use it's veto again. Eventually a compromise is reached that allows the flights to continue "with unanimous security council backing" but which severely curtails the ability of the crews to react to provocation.

Three months later an RAF plane patrolling the northern no fly zone is shot down. The UK presses to have the rules of engagement changed so that they can hut radar and missile sites but the UN refuses. The US and UK say that they are no longer willing to risk personnel policing the no fly zones if their crews do not have the right to self defense. With no authorization forthcoming the US/UK cease operations.

Six months later Saddam's troops move into Kurdistan to deal with a group of Kurdish Islamisists south of Mossel. Afterwards they engage in a protracted struggle with the PKK for control of the larger Kurdish cities. In the south Saddam's rapidly rebuilding armies secure the oilfields and the port city of Basra against a Sh'ite insurgency.

The US accuses Saddam of reconstituting is WMD programs that had remained dormant during the years of sanctions. Iran announces it's own nuclear program, Saudi Arabia builds two Russian designed experimental reactors. As it becomes clear that Iran is accelerating production of enriched uranium Saudi Arabia buys a bomb outright from Pakistan in defiance of nuclear proliferation treaties.

Israel, seeing that international law is being flaunted attack either Iraqi or Iranian nuclear sites. The whole area goes into high alert. At that moment Al Queda operatives kill the King of Jordan in a martyrdom style suicide attack. Jordan descends into chaos destabilizing the region. With Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel all rearming it looks like a regional war can not be averted.

In the US the high cost of oil ($7/gallon petrol) sparks an economic downturn that goes global in months. Drilling starts in ANWR to secure a "strategic supply." The economic downturn effects health and education spending while defense spending rises as American military resources race to secure US economic assets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
In the US the high cost of oil ($7/gallon petrol) sparks an economic downturn that goes global in months. Drilling starts in ANWR to secure a "strategic supply." The economic downturn effects health and education spending while defense spending rises as American military resources race to secure US economic assets.

The US President is pressured into drinking a Dr Pepper, "What's the worst that could happen?"

Clumsy as ever he spills the drink on the top secret White House control nuclear panel while snorting a line of cocaine off a hookers butt cheek, the sticky brown liquid fuses the circuits causing an immediate launch of the US's entire Nuclear arsenal, sparking M.A.D. as all other Nuclear powers launch their weapons at everyone else.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:15 AM

FLETCH2

Nah, this isn't "the worse that could happen ever." There is no WMD attack on the US, there isn't even a full scale shooting war in the mid east. Ok so some more Kurds get massacred and a madman gets to play with anthrax and sarin again but hey no biggie. Only real story is the horror of $7 petrol.

Reality isn't clean and pretty. The "road not taken" often looks better simply because you don't know what could have happened because you didn't take it. Not doing the Iraq thing may have resulted in world peace, we might all be singing kumbya and holding hands, or we could all be dead. The most likely scenario is something in between something just as f****** up but in a different way. Then we'd all be sitting here posting to a thread called "What if we'd invaded Iraq"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:50 AM

Ummm... no offense, but I'm not going to be singing Kumbaya in this life or any other, not even with a gun to my head or if nailed to a cross...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:54 AM

FLETCH2

Ok point taken, perhaps singing kumbaya and a lingering nuclear death are not all that different.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Huh. Interesting topic.

Hans Blix declares Iraq in substantial compliance with UN resolutions. The embargo is lifted, and Iraq signs oil deals with France and Russia, with payment to be made in Euros. (This was on the table immediately before we invaded, of which you are all woefully ignorant.) The dollar drops about 10% in value. The USA deficit remains at its current official level, but does not include the additonal $4 trillion. Without the distraction of the Iraq invasion, USA troops are allowed to monitor Afghanistan much more closely, and a working democracy and economy is eventually cobbled together.

Oil flows from Iraq at increased levels. The price of oil stays at about $30/ bbl and the price of gas at about $2/ gal. Venezuela, and Russia do NOT reap an economic oil boom and thus do not gain regional advantage. Eventually, China and Iraq reach a long-term cotract and China is not forced to play footsie with Somalia, and does not supply arms in exchange for oil. The crisis in Darfur is reduced.

Meanwhile the USA oil companies do not "earn" record profits, and they grind their teeth in frustration because they have been blocked from the world's second-largest oil fields. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE have reduced incomes, and are forced to face internal unrest. Democractic institutions gain power in Saudi Arabia, while the radical Sunnis are exported to Pakistan and become terrorists. Without the pressure of occupying Iraq, the USA is not forced to declare Pakistan as an "ally" and eventually cuts economic and trade ties in recognition of active jihadism and promotion of terrorism under (miliary leder) Pervez Musharraf.

Iraq remains a tyranny, albeit a secular and more prosperous one. Sddam turns Iraq over to his two batshit sons. The no-fly zones are continued, and while the central Sunnis become more prosperous the southern Shias devolve into squabbling groups of improverished tribes. Meanwhile, the Kurds make steady gains towards democracy in the north.

Concerns continue about Iraq's potential WMD interests, as well as Iran's. The situation is monitored closely by the IAEA but remains problematic. Israel and the Palestinians continue as before.

ETA: Without the inducement of $120/ bbl oil, biofuels, alternative energy, and fuel-efficient cars remain a figment of ecologists' dreams. There are no food riots because of biofuel demand, people continue to drive even bigger SUVs and the problems of rampant energy consumption stay on the table for the future.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So when should we have gone back into our shell? After WWII? If so, then large portions of the world would enjoy the same standard of living and freedoms as North Korea or Cuba.

I was under the impression that large portions of the world already have the same (or worse) living conditions and freedoms as those two.

And, no, we shouldn't have gone back into our shell. We should have continued our Cold War policy of helping out anyone who'll help us, whether they're a liberal democracy, or a draconian dictatorship. Hell, without the Soviet Bloc's interference, we should have expanded that policy. The world would be a much more stable place without foolishly naive good intentions guiding policy.

In that regard, the neocons are just as bad as the worst of the bleeding-heart liberals. Spread democracy to the globe? Yeah, that's working out just wonderfully so far, isn't it?

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Gosh, this is such a great idea for a thread! Doesn't anyone else want to play?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

What if no Iraq invasion ?

No excuse to let bin Laden go. Perhaps a real trial at the Hague to see if al Qaeda was indeed the organization responsible for 9/11.

The world still allied with the US on fighting terror.

Here's a site that's fun - you can see what you can buy for 3 trillion dollars - the cost of the Iraq war: http://3trillion.org/ I fixed global warming, gave everyone in the US health care, planted five million trees, and a few other assorted things, and came home with almost a trillion in change. The stuff you didn't do because you were busy spending for other stuff - that's called 'opportunity cost' btw.

Of course, under GW Bush none of that good stuff would be close to happening anyway with all that money. US internal 'security' would be vastly better funded. Central and South America would be under the undistracted eye of Sauron.

OTOH China wouldn't own the US dollar, and maybe, just maybe, the US government wouldn't be digging itself into the debt-hole even further.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:40 PM

Quote:
No excuse to let bin Laden go. Perhaps a real trial at the Hague to see if al Qaeda was indeed the organization responsible for 9/11.

Rue, why you gotta be hatin' on bin Laden? Don't you listen to your President? He says he's not all that worried about him, and doesn't spend much time thinking about him.

For the humor-impaired among you, that was what we call "sarcasm".

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:46 PM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

OK.

Instead of invading Iraq. Over 300,000 troops are sent to Afganistan. The Taliban is completely destroyed. Osama Bin Laden is captured and dragged off to Camp X-Ray. A year later he is put on trial at the Hauge. After a 6 week trial he is taken to New York and put to death in the electric chair.

Saddam Hussein, shaken by the events in Afganistan, fully complies with UN Orders. Although primarily a paper tiger he serves as a secular foil to the fundamentalist regime in Irag until he is found dead apparently of natural causes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:48 PM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

And this thread is never started.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:49 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Gosh, this is such a great idea for a thread! Doesn't anyone else want to play?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

Kinda scared to stick my head up, but my guess would be that no invasion, but the US vetos any attempt to withdraw or reduce sanctions despite any inspection reports or intell to the contrary. Iraqis still die due to US policy, but the Bushite regime instead decides to strike at North Korea who build nukes after Bush withdraws from a Clinton signed treaty which kept them from doing so in the past...

Lets party like its 1939 !!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

After matching agency predictions almost word for word, Gino is "detained" for aggressive questioning by the CIA.

Sorry Gino. The more things change, the more they stay the same!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:03 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
After matching agency predictions almost word for word, Gino is "detained" for aggressive questioning by the CIA.

Sorry Gino. The more things change, the more they stay the same!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

Its okay, Val Kilmer already taught me how to waterboard

we had fun with our guns until the lifeguard took our ammo away.....

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Do the Beach Boys know about this ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:29 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Do the Beach Boys know about this ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

them guys aren't nearly as much fun

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
OK.

Instead of invading Iraq. Over 300,000 troops are sent to Afganistan. The Taliban is completely destroyed. Osama Bin Laden is captured and dragged off to Camp X-Ray. A year later he is put on trial at the Hauge. After a 6 week trial he is taken to New York and put to death in the electric chair.

Saddam Hussein, shaken by the events in Afganistan, fully complies with UN Orders. Although primarily a paper tiger he serves as a secular foil to the fundamentalist regime in Irag until he is found dead apparently of natural causes.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!... Oh, wait... You weren't joking? You really have no idea how foreign policy really works, do you? Or logistics.

Do you know how expensive it would be to move 300,000 troops to Afghanistan? 300,000 troops that we don't have, by the way. At least, if we do have them, they can't be spared (we do have the rest of the Empire to maintain, after all). Not to mention the fact that it would be totally unnecessary and ineffective. Unless you could put one soldier on every acre of Afghan soil, you're not going to find everyone. In fact, you make it less likely that you'll find the people you're looking for, because it's doubtful the natives will take to having legions of infidels roaming the countryside, hunting the Taliban, whom they have a lot more in common with than their conquerors.

Aside from the initial failure to press our advantage and exterminate the remnants of the Taliban, allowing the bastards to regroup and reorganize, what we have been doing with special forces in the country has worked wonders. Special Ops squads have been in Afghanistan from Day One, and have done more to win the hearts and minds of the locals (the true War on Terror) than all the tens of thousands of troops with their tanks and fighter jets.

Osama would still be free, because he hasn't been in Afghanistan since the beginning of the invasion! People don't give Osama enough credit. He is one smart son-of-a-bitch. And he has to be, to run a terror network capable of striking in the U.S. That means he was smart enough to know when to leave. He's been sitting back laughing at us from across the Pakistani border from the beginning, knowing that we weren't about to invade one of our few allies (and a nuclear power) in the region, and knowing that the Paki Government was too divided on the issue to ever agree to let the U.S. Military have the free run of the country to search for him. And trying him in the Hague (if we even catch him before he dies of old age)? Are you just completely ignorant of American Psychology? Do you honestly think America would let the U.N. try the man? They probably wouldn't even execute him, if the trial even got that far before he died of old age. Americans were out for blood. If we ever caught him, we would have squeezed as much intel out of him as possible, then executed him, maybe even publicly, possibly without a trial (or at least with the bare minimum of effort to make it appear that we gave him a trial).

And Iraq? Saddam wouldn't have budged, because he was telling the truth (he said "we have no WMDs", and guess what: he didn't!), and he had, for the most part, cooperated, despite the anger he must have felt at the situation. Really, there's a certain amount of pride in being able to actually run your country without a bunch of foreigners breathing down your neck, telling you how to do your job. How well do you think Americans would take it, after all, (George Dubya especially) if the U.N. declared that the U.S. would either give them access to ALL government weapons projects and ALL of our armaments, or they would pass crippling sanctions against us? Do you think WE would cooperate fully, and show them everything?

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 5:23 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Reaverman

Are you ill ? Because your post makes very little sense.

Afghanistan is working out well ? That would be news if it were true. Instead, just a few weeks ago (April 27, 2008) the Taleban infiltrated a military parade in central Kabul, firing guns and rockets in an attempt to assassinate Karzai. So rather than see his little army march in nice lines, he got to see them scatter for their lives before his bodyguards trundled him away. (Other participants didn't escape.) Poppy growing and opium production (and addiction) are now double what they were in Taleban days. Warlords maintain their heavy armaments and guns. The pipeline can't be built due to political and military instability. Meanwhile, speaking of hearts and minds, Afghanis, caught between the local warlords and US/ NATO troops when they do show up, side with the warlords simply as the greatest threat they need to appease. And it's US and NATO troops, not just the US. There is no 'national' - tranportation, education, health, business - anything. Oh, and women are still wearing those burqas.

Yeah, that went well.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Afghanistan is working out well? That would be news if it were true. Instead, just a few weeks ago (April 27, 2008) the Taleban infiltrated a military parade in central Kabul, firing guns and rockets in an attempt to assassinate Karzai.

And how many attempts have they made before that? If it's a high number, then at least we're doing something right, because Karzai isn't dead yet. If it's a low number, then they likely don't have the resources for numerous attacks, meaning that we are winning the war of attrition.

Quote:
Poppy growing and opium production (and addiction) are now double what they were in Taleban days.

Yep. Ya know why? Because we're not trying to stop it. Oh, I know the Pentagon would say that we're doing "everything in our power to wipe the scourge of drugs out in Afghanistan", but the fact is, we're not. To win the hearts and minds, you have to help people, or, in cases like the poppy and marijuana fields of rural Afghanistan, just let them benefit from whats already there. The Taliban controlled production of opium and marijuana, and took most of the profits. Letting the farmers keep their money has done a helluva lot for local morale, and the economy.

Quote:
Warlords maintain their heavy armaments and guns.

Afghanistan has always been a hodge-podge of warlord territory. Even the Taliban had to work with the warlords. And for us? The warlords' very existence is a HUGE benefit for our cause. While they are not always easy to deal with, their existence means that, when they work with us, we have readily available local militias to fight the Taliban remnant. All we have to do is make it worth the Warlords' while, and they are a tremendous help. By the same token, if we continue to look upon them as a cancer that needs to be removed, and treating them like it, they can be an enourmous hinderence to our efforts.

Quote:
Meanwhile, speaking of hearts and minds, Afghanis, caught between the local warlords and US/ NATO troops when they do show up, side with the warlords simply as the greatest threat they need to appease.

Of course they do. And they should. The warlords have been around for thousands of years, some tracing their ancestry to the days of the Persian Empire. They will still be around long after we have packed up and left. The trick is getting the warlords to side with us. If the people have sided with them, all the better. It means that by swaying a single man to our cause, we can add the force of thousands of people to the struggle on our side. That's the great thing about aristocrats: they make things simpler.

Quote:
And it's US and NATO troops, not just the US.

Semantics. The U.S. has the biggest investment of money and people on the ground. And "U.S." is easier to type than "U.S. and NATO". But if you want to nitpick, then yes, NATO is there too.

Quote:
There is no 'national' - tranportation, education, health, business - anything.

All in good time. You have to remember, there has never been a national system like we have here in the U.S. Hell, there's never even been a sense of national unity, the first step in creating national infrastructure, because Afghanistan has always been a single country in name only. In reality, it has always been a collection of dozens of rival fiefdoms that can be occaisionally led cohesively by powerful, city-based regimes, but never truly ruled over. Much like the U.S. would be now if the Articles of Confederation hadn't been scrapped.

Quote:
Oh, and women are still wearing those burqas.

I know you're probably as sick of reading it as I am of typing it, but, its all about hearts and minds. Now, people generally assume that we're out to win everyone's heart and mind. That's just untrue. To put it plainly, for now, we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people that matter. And in Afghan society, women don't. Afghan women have no voice, and no power, meaning that, from a purely practical standpoint, they are useless to us. If we went around "freeing" them, defying centuries of religious tradition, it might make some of the women happy, but it sure as hell would piss off the male movers-and-shakers. The people that do matter, in terms of what we're trying to accomplish.

Look at it this way: if our roles were reversed, and the U.S. was conquered by a Muslim superpower, how would you react if they imposed Sharia as our national code of law, and went around telling us it's "evil" for our society to pressure women into wearing skimpy, sexy clothes, and chose to "liberate them from the hungry stares of men" by forcing them to wear burkas? I don't know about you, but I would be pretty pissed. They regard the ideas of those traditions as unassailable facts of life. Things that should never change. Much like how we view the freedoms we have. We just have to work with their traditions to have any chance of success.

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"And how many attempts have they made before that? If it's a high number, then at least we're doing something right, because Karzai isn't dead yet. If it's a low number, then they likely don't have the resources for numerous attacks, meaning that we are winning the war of attrition."

For one thing, with either answer you give you pretend things are going well. Nice going dude.

And - you mean you don't know the answers to your own questions ??!! Then why are you even assuming your opinions matter ?
But your post is even more off-kilter than that, if possible. The Taleban, which claimed credit, was set up in a building overlooking the parade field. That area of Kabul had been under heavy security - restricted access and the lot - for weeks. And despite all that ...
So, what exactly went well with this ? B/c the mayor of Kabul seems to be losing Kabul as well as the entire country.

"Letting the farmers keep their money has done a helluva lot for local morale, and the economy."

Snicker - you expose your ignorance with every word. Farmers don't want to plant poppies. They'd rather plant food - you know, so they don't starve ? What they have is an inability to get aid for planting food. The government, such as it is, has nothing to give. So they must go to the local warlords for private loans - and guess what they get to plant with that money ! And btw, the farmers don't get to 'keep' the money - b/c of those loans.

"Even the Taliban had to work with the warlords."

Actually - no. The Taleban per se disarmed the entire countryside. They didn't 'have' to work with them at all.

"The warlords' very existence is a HUGE benefit for our cause. ... All we have to do is make it worth the Warlords' while ..."

Let's see - let them sell opium to buy their high-tech state of the art armaments to undermine Karzai and support the Taliban whenever they wish. Does that seem right to you ? 'Cause to me it sure looks like a failure in the making.

"If the people have sided with the(m) warlords, all the better."

Well, the people aren't exactly siding with the warlords, they're just appeasing them. Nor are they siding with US/ NATO forces either, and with good reason.

"You have to remember, there has never been a national system like we have here in the U.S."

Probably the acme of national systems came during the communist era, roughly 1978- 1988.

"To put it plainly, for now, we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people that matter."

In that case the US had better make up its mind as to who exactly matters and how much they can be counted on. Karzai can be counted on, but does he matter all that much ? And while the warlords (often closely allied with or identical to the Taleban) may matter, can they be counted on for anything at all ? Because at this point, the US is backing both. And by trying to ride two donkeys going in opposite directions - is going to end up being worse than an ass.

So yeah, you can pretend Afghanistan is going well. Just don't be surpised when you look back and find you're leading a parade of one.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:55 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Reaverman, if we're not on Afghanistan to capture bin Laden or destroy al Qaida, not to foster a poppy-independent economy, not to help free women (who BTW enjoyed a far superior status under the Soviets, so that by the time the Soviets were defeated HALF of the doctors were women. Which is why the Taliban had such a huge negative effect on women: their freedom was seriously diminished by the Taliban especially in comparison to what they had achieved under Soviet rule), and it's not to reduce the power of the warlords (who BTW are every bit as nasty as "the Taliban"), and it's not to unify the nation or bring progress and education...

In other words, if all we're doing is pandering to the warlords in pursuit of getting rid the "the Taliban" without reducing "the Taliban's" negative paradigm one whit...

what the f*ck are we doing there in the first place?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:09 PM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Whoa Reave what a riff!

Thanks for the flattering commentary regarding my post

. Of course, I was not entirely serious it is afterall a fantasy thread.

However, I will point out that there was no need for me to have a through knowledge of logistics to suggest that 300,000 troops could have been used to invade Afghanistan if Iraq was not on the menu. That's because 300,000 is the approximate the number of troops used to invade Iraq. Yes it would have been logsitcally harder to get 300,000 soldiers there than Iraq, but not impossible. (in fact it's kind of unpatriotic of you to suggest the US Armed Forces and their Allies couldn't get that mobilize that many men

).

The counter insurgency policies authored by General Petraeus require a large number of troops to suppress an insurgency. I think the number is like 20 occupiers/1,000 civilians. We've never had near that many coalition troops in Afghanistan. I concede your point that special forces are important, and add that one of their roles as recruiters and trainers of irregular and regular forces could help cut into that deficit. But I don't think its a match for regular army.

Regarding bin Laden and his escape, they had him trapped in Tora Bora. But a tactical mistake was made and the task of guarding one of the potential escape routes was assigned to local troops who were either on the take or incompentent. Bin Laden and his slipped out. Well don't beleive me here's a news clipping:

"U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight
Failure to Send Troops in Pursuit Termed Major Error

By Barton Gellman and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 17, 2002; Page A01

The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge...."

So I maintain if we had more troops we would have got him.

Regarding Hussein, I agree with your view more than you think. Hussein would have tried to hang on. A large part of his problem was that he was trying to look strong to his neighbors and internal enemies while the UN Inspectors were revealing that he's got nothing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

" A large part of his problem was that he was trying to look strong to his neighbors and internal enemies while the UN Inspectors were revealing that he's got nothing."

But he was counting on the idea that no one was crazy enough to attack him with UN inspectors in the country. And he probably would have been happy to have a semi-permament UN presence, just in case. Sure, it would have hobbled his power. But he was intent on surviving.

***************************************************************
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:53 PM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

To quote my favorite Sunday Host, "You're on point."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Reaverman, if we're not on Afghanistan to capture bin Laden or destroy al Qaida, not to foster a poppy-independent economy, not to help free women (who BTW enjoyed a far superior status under the Soviets, so that by the time the Soviets were defeated HALF of the doctors were women. Which is why the Taliban had such a huge negative effect on women: their freedom was seriously diminished by the Taliban especially in comparison to what they had achieved under Soviet rule), and it's not to reduce the power of the warlords (who BTW are every bit as nasty as "the Taliban"), and it's not to unify the nation or bring progress and education...

In other words, if all we're doing is pandering to the warlords in pursuit of getting rid the "the Taliban" without reducing "the Taliban's" negative paradigm one whit...

what the f*ck are we doing there in the first place?

Eliminating a threat. Afghanistan was a huge base of Ops for the folks that attacked us on 9/11. We have eliminated their ability to openly use it, and we severely hampered their efforts, at least before Iraq turned into an Islamic demogogue's wet dream. All those other things were side-goals meant to pacify the anti-war crowd. Sure, the higher-ups actually did intend to carry out some of them, but reality has intruded on those good intentions.

We're finding out what the Soviets did before us: you can't completely alter a culture in a couple of years and NOT expect a massive conservative backlash, regardless of how unjust such a culture seems. It's simple common sense. If you want to radically change a culture, you have to do it slowly. I mean multi-generationally slowly.

But, to be brutally honest, I just don't care about their culture. I care about what benefits us the most. If that means a policy of slow assimilation, fine. If it means allowing "injustices" to continue, whatever. If success requires that we burn the entire region into radioactive glass, so be it. So long as we come out on top in the end.

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But, to be brutally honest, I just don't care about their culture. I care about what benefits us the most. If that means a policy of slow assimilation, fine. If it means allowing "injustices" to continue, whatever. If success requires that we burn the entire region into radioactive glass, so be it. So long as we come out on top in the end.

Have you ever heard of "blowback"? I can point to many instances where we promoted tyranny only to have it bite us in the *ss later:

Overthrowing the Mossadegh govt in Iran and installing the Shah (and his infamous Savak) only to have the Shah thrown out and replaced by Khomeini.
THEN supporting Saddam to fight Khomeini.
Supporting the Taliban/ mujahideen (including ObL) to oust the Soviets ... and we know how that ended up!
These are only threee instances; I can cite at least a dozen more.

The times we went to war that worked out was when we followed up with development aid and support: Germany and Japan. If I were to encapsulate our REAL interests it would be stability, general propserity and transparency. But the problem is that our REAL interests don't coincide with the interests of the capitalists who want poverty and tyranny because it promotes cheap raw materials and cheap labor

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:52 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Eliminating a threat. Afghanistan was a huge base of Ops for the folks that attacked us on 9/11. We have eliminated their ability to openly use it, and we severely hampered their efforts ..."

Not according to the US NIE which found (June 19, 2007) that al Qaeda had rebuilt to 9/11 capability and was just as much of a threat to the US as ever.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p99s01-duts.html

If you want to be considered credible, it would help if you had facts to go with your 'tude, dude. Otherwise you just look like some little kid with toy guns pretending to be a grown-up. And it looks silly.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:19 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The Taleban, which claimed credit, was set up in a building overlooking the parade field. That area of Kabul had been under heavy security - restricted access and the lot - for weeks. And despite all that ...
So, what exactly went well with this ?

Their mission failed.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Farmers don't want to plant poppies. They'd rather plant food - you know, so they don't starve ? What they have is an inability to get aid for planting food. The government, such as it is, has nothing to give. So they must go to the local warlords for private loans - and guess what they get to plant with that money ! And btw, the farmers don't get to 'keep' the money - b/c of those loans.

Please provide a link for this assertion. I've heard most farmers grow poppies instead of food because poppies are much more lucrative.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The warlords' very existence is a HUGE benefit for our cause. ... All we have to do is make it worth the Warlords' while ..."

Let's see - let them sell opium to buy their high-tech state of the art armaments to undermine Karzai and support the Taliban whenever they wish. Does that seem right to you ? 'Cause to me it sure looks like a failure in the making.

Is this opinion or do you have facts to support this supposition?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You have to remember, there has never been a national system like we have here in the U.S."

Probably the acme of national systems came during the communist era, roughly 1978- 1988.

Which the Taliban spent 20 years undermining.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"To put it plainly, for now, we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people that matter."

In that case the US had better make up its mind as to who exactly matters and how much they can be counted on. Karzai can be counted on, but does he matter all that much ? And while the warlords (often closely allied with or identical to the Taleban) may matter, can they be counted on for anything at all ? Because at this point, the US is backing both. And by trying to ride two donkeys going in opposite directions - is going to end up being worse than an ass.

Opinion or substantiated fact?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So yeah, you can pretend Afghanistan is going well. Just don't be surpised when you look back and find you're leading a parade of one.

Is Afghanistan doing well really that hard for you to take or are you simply being a contrarian?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:55 PM