Breaking News: Abu Musab Killed In Iraq ...

[Provost Harrison]

At least MtG you acknowledge that it was an invasion of pure imperialism...

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by The diplomat
But it will happen. We will get Bin Laden sooner or later.

Why, do you think he'll hand himself in?

[Sava]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Man, when you're on, you're on. Yeah, just like UNISOM I and II, Rwanda, Haiti, and every other place where the UN has just stood around on their collective dicks.

The UN (or any international organization) will be as useful or productive as the member nations make it. Considering the US is the most powerful member, we have only ourselves to blame for UN's ineffectiveness. If the US took it upon itself to make the UN an effective organization (working with other member nations), it could do so. Unfortunately, many people don't want to see the UN become an effective organization because they fear it would mean losing individual national sovereignty.

When we did it, we didn't flip out Yuppie futures traders on NYMEX. We can't afford for the Iraqis to have a little civil war at their convenience.



As soon as they show they can run it in a way we consider acceptable, and keep the oil flowing, we'll give their country back to them.



Yeah - they're sitting on or next to the majority of the world's oil supply.

The long term benefits of stable, democratic Iraq will outweigh the short term problems of a civil war... and I'm still not convinced that a US withdrawl = Iraqi Civil war.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
At least MtG you acknowledge that it was an invasion of pure imperialism...

That, and probably a little personal vendetta / manhood exercise for Dubya. I don't have any doubt that invasion of Iraq was inevitable from the moment Dubya was sworn in. 9/11 was an unfortunate distraction, but ultimately served as a useful marketing tie-in, since a majority of Americans were willing to play "thump-an-A-rab" without a whole lot of prodding, and without much concern about who, as long as it was an A-rab we already didn't like.

Now that it's a done deed, we may as well at least try to get the best we can out of it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
The UN (or any international organization) will be as useful or productive as the member nations make it.

Considering the US is the most powerful member, we have only ourselves to blame for UN's ineffectiveness. If the US took it upon itself to make the UN an effective organization (working with other member nations), it could do so.

Yes, we could throw billions into it, place all our troops under UN command, and have the peacekeeping mission run by a Frog, with input from 5,000 bureaucrats in New York. The US alone can't make the UN effective at peacekeeping.

Unfortunately, many people don't want to see the UN become an effective organization because they fear it would mean losing individual national sovereignty.

Yeah, like each and every member state? Starting with China and Russia.

The long term benefits of stable, democratic Iraq will outweigh the short term problems of a civil war... and I'm still not convinced that a US withdrawl = Iraqi Civil war.

Unfortunately, futures markets for oil only look forward six years or so. And no, there might not be civil war. Anarchy, partition, or foreign Shiite dominance (I came, I saw, Iran ) are alternatives. Who cares, if it adversely affects the price of oil and the economy, it's bad for us - the details don't matter.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
At least MtG you acknowledge that it was an invasion of pure imperialism...

Invasion was not necessarily imperialism. It was about protecting the security of the oil reserves. Say what you want about Bush and the corruption in the administration (Cheney, Halliburton, etc)... there have been plans on the table to go to war in the Gulf to protect the oil reserves going back 50 years.

Bush, before 9/11, didn't want this. He didn't want to go to war in Iraq. That's my belief. Look at his presidency before 9-11... there was no military build up... he was cutting terrorism funding (hell, on 9-10-2001 in fact...)... his agenda was purely domestic. 9-11 changed his world view. I truly believe this. Yes, the neo-cons in the defense department had an agenda, but Bush wasn't going to go to war just because of them. But 9-11 "proved them right" in his mind. So he gave them a blank check, so to speak.

The theme of this administration has been incompetency. I'm not going to buy into the conspiracy theories.

If you want to call America an Empire, go ahead. But in terms of world history, it's been the most reserved "Empire" in all of human history. Including the British Empire, I might add. You think the Romans would have hesitated to use it's military might the way America has? Would you trust any of the Roman Emperors with a nuclear weapon?

Bush is a bad president. Iraq was a mistake. But talk of imperialism and such is just silly. I think Bush made more of a pragmatic call... but you have to think of the kind of man he is. His dad was president, he has a background in oil. He has some capable people around him... though many of them are ideologues. They just made a bad call. They're only human.

These are interesting times... but I think history won't be quite as harsh to Bush as his opponents are now.

What it all boils down to... he's just a goofball who's trying to do what he believes is right. I honestly believe that.

I've recently been learning, in depth, about the US presidents. It's caused me to look at the W. Bush presidency with more objectivity. I'm stepping outside of the politics and looking at the impact on history, his past, and his personality. Maybe it's too early to be doing this... but I don't give a ****.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Yes, we could throw billions into it, place all our troops under UN command, and have the peacekeeping mission run by a Frog, with input from 5,000 bureaucrats in New York. The US alone can't make the UN effective at peacekeeping.



Yeah, like each and every member state? Starting with China and Russia.

Sooner or later all you children are going to have to learn to get along and play nice.

Besides, Iraq may be our mess, but as everyone knows, oil is a global commodity, and Iraq sits on some massive oil reserves. It's in everyone's interests that this situation be resolved. Some skilled diplomacy would be necessary... but it is not impossible. It would take vision. I guess I'm just am optimist. I guess I'm just thinking ahead of the times.

But that's the problem isn't it. Nobody wants to pitch in. Everybody wants to worry about their own ****, huh? Maybe that's why there are so many problems in the world. Maybe that's why the UN is ineffective... because nobody cares enough to make it work. Including America

Unfortunately, futures markets for oil only look forward six years or so. And no, there might not be civil war. Anarchy, partition, or foreign Shiite dominance (I came, I saw, Iran ) are alternatives. Who cares, if it adversely affects the price of oil and the economy, it's bad for us - the details don't matter.

Again... lust for short term gain and a lack of vision will end up hurting us in the long run. But then again, this can be applied to more than just the War in Iraq...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
Bush, before 9/11, didn't want this. He didn't want to go to war in Iraq. That's my belief. Look at his presidency before 9-11... there was no military build up... he was cutting terrorism funding (hell, on 9-10-2001 in fact...)... his agenda was purely domestic. 9-11 changed his world view. I truly believe this. Yes, the neo-cons in the defense department had an agenda, but Bush wasn't going to go to war just because of them. But 9-11 "proved them right" in his mind. So he gave them a blank check, so to speak.

At the beginning, with a close election and no mandate, Bush didn't have the popular support politically necessary to carry out an invasion. Of course a domestic agenda would be first priority for such a President.

His agenda was clear from the advisors he chose and the places in his administration in which he put them. If the Neo-con agenda wasn't Bush's, why did he pack so many of them into critical spots in the defense and national security functions in his administration?

You don't need a conspiracy theory, or to assume Bush had anything to do with causing 9/11, actively, or by omission, to realize Bush certainly took advantage of the event to promote his agenda with respect to Iraq.

[techumseh]

It doesn't matter what you do, they're going to run you out.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Actually that would be CentCom.

I actually know, but you're not supposed to know that I know .

Seriously, i meant SOCOM as a generic abbrev. for all significantly-above-average grunts

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
apparenly local Iraqis provided intell as well.

NPR reported this morning that the local Iraqi intel came from insurgents, which might be expected re a specific time / place of apparent staff meeting. If true, this raises questions:
Was US used as muscle in internal insurgency dispute?
Was a-Z eliminated because he was too nutso, thus harming goals of Iraqi insurgents?
If there was a split, are the remaining insurgents more or less effective? More or less willing to negotiate?
Are there other internal divisions that could potentially be exploited?

edit: format

[Arrian]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


At the beginning, with a close election and no mandate, Bush didn't have the popular support politically necessary to carry out an invasion. Of course a domestic agenda would be first priority for such a President.

His agenda was clear from the advisors he chose and the places in his administration in which he put them. If the Neo-con agenda wasn't Bush's, why did he pack so many of them into critical spots in the defense and national security functions in his administration?

You don't need a conspiracy theory, or to assume Bush had anything to do with causing 9/11, actively, or by omission, to realize Bush certainly took advantage of the event to promote his agenda with respect to Iraq.

Well said.

-Arrian

[Saras]

Damn, AS is just so un-Poly, all serious and smart.

[Saras]

disclaimer:I'm slightly drunk. Yes, on Thursday 7.41 PM.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Have you ever pissed into a wasps' nest before? It doesn't tend to stop them...

What an odd metaphor.

I suggested that disrupting the leadership of the insurgents might have good synergy with a withdrawl of the foreign occupiers to help achieve peace and stability in Iraq and you respond with this weird metaphor?