Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan

http://www.sundayherald.com/39221

quote:

---

The Sunday Herald previously uncovered how a think-tank - run by vice-president Dick Cheney; defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Bush’s younger brother Jeb, the governor of Florida; and Lewis Libby, Cheney’s deputy - wrote a blueprint for regime change as early as September 2000.

​

The think-tank, the Project for the New American Century, said, in the document Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, that: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein”.

​

The document - referred to as a blueprint for US global domination - laid plans for a Bush government “maintaining US global pre- eminence, precluding the rise of a great-power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests”. It also said fighting and winning multiple wars was a “core mission”.

---

I used to have a link to the think tank website.But that pre-dates your supposed cause.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Are you sure? I thought the assassination attempt was in 1993 while your source says:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So? The purpose of terrorism is to incapacitate the opponent through fear.So in answer to terrorism we should incapacitate ourselves with imagined and trumpet up fears that are way out of proportion to the actual effect?I repeat -- in case you missed it -- George W Bush has killed more americans than the terrorist attacks did.In the process he has guaranteed another generation of terrorists will be willing to attack american targets.And this because he started an invasion into a country that has nothing to do with plane bombs and other "Thats creative..." ways to kill innocents, but has left them free to think of new things between signing up new recruits to carry them out.Thats dumb.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The purpose of terrorism is to turn the United States into an Islamic state, wipe Israel off the map, and to reestablish the Caliphate. Where is your logic here? If you mean he is responsible for soldiers'/sailors'/airmen/marines' deaths in the GWOT, then I'll say that's innacurate. Bad guys with bad toys caused those deaths. They've been doing it for 30 years (this time). What makes you think they would just lay down and leave us alone? If you get your ass kicked in a war by Country A, and sign on the dotted line that you will abide by certain standards if Country A will stop kicking your ass , then you break those standards for 13 years, then Country A reserves the right to kick your ass again at any time.

---

Next time I am too lazy, next time I am too tired, Next time I don't have enough[/url] time....

I think this comes from how the the Clinton Adminstration refused to engage terrorism head-on. It was criticized long befgore the Republicans ever entered office. Take for example, Somalia. The US lost, I believe, 17 Special Operators while trying to bring a terrorist to justice. But when the going got rough, the Clinton admin tucked tail and whimpered away with its tail between their legs, thus strengthening the resolve of the West's enemies. The objective was never met, and leraving Somalia prematurely basically told the soldiers that they died for nothing at all. They accomplished nothing.This mentality was greatly exacerbated by the 7 blatant attacks that this administratiuon refused to act upon. Now, there have been mistakes with the Bush Administration. To strengthen the resolve of the waning American support in Iraq, we were told of WMD's, Mission Accomplished, Al-Qaeda/Hussein ties, Sectarian violence, etc. The reality is that hindsight is 20/20. And we now have no way of knowing what would have happened if the Bush Admin had not disamed the Hussein regime. We can say that going into Iraq was a great idea and we can say that it was a horrible idea, but the reality is what's done is done. It would be terrribly irresponsible to leave now, even though these people should have been ready to wipe their own butts by now. I find it interesting that the Bible says that Babylon is cursed and anyone that goes into Iraq will not bear fruit from their efforts. An ominous and neglected omen at best-- and at least, an interesting coincidence. The problem is that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are shadow organizations. They aren't a country. They don't wear uniforms, they play nice, and the days of civilised war with rules of engagements are over. You can say goodbye to how we used to live. We will never experience that kind of prosperity ever again-- might as well get used to it, aye....?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Ah yes. I think it definitely was Clinton. I remember in 1983 when he tucked his tail between his legs and whimpered away from Lebanon.Wait, was that Clinton or was that the absolutely worst President in the last 100 years? What was his name? Some third rate 'B' movie actor IIRC.The US went into Somalia for valid reasons, humanitarian reason, to bring in food and health care. Frankly, I do not know if we could have done anything other than what we did. The US tried.BUT...the President of the US did not lie to Congress and the American people about why we were going there.The President of the US did decide that the cost was too high to continue and so pulled the troops out.That is not the case in the Iraq Invasion.In the case of the Iraq Invasion the President of the US lied to Congress and to the American People about the connect between Iraq and AQ, the likelyhood of WMDs.The President has not made it and cannot make it a primarily humanitarian mission.The infrasturcture we may rebuild is simply the infrastructure we destroyed either during the First Gulf War, the period between the wars when we maintained sanctions against Iraq or during the Second Gulf War.Somalia was an effort of honor.Iraq is an effort of shame.The question should be:"is there any way that the US can salvage any honor from our presence in Iraq and is there anyway we can repay the debt owed to the Iraqi peoples and to the US citizens?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We went over this already in chat so I'll be brief. No one can doubt, (not even you), that Reagan had an enormously positive effect on the world through his tough policies. The Iran Contra scandal was certainly a stain on his record. I don't there is one presidency that can avoid it. But to compare Reagan in Lebanon to Clinton in Somalia is begging the question and paying no attention to circumstance. Man, I just can't see how anyone could despise Reagan, of all the crappy presidents (See: Nixon, Carter, Johnson for details), that you would loathe Reagan as much as you do. The US did go into Somalia for a reason, but none of the above from your list. They went in to quash rogue warlords who were heaping civil unrest upon its own people. I don't blame Clinton for going in, I blame him for leaving without accomplishing one single objective. All he did was show the world that the mighty US will cave in and crumble if the heat is turned up enough. No, you change tactics and you complete your objective, otherwise, those men died in vain. In the case of trying to tie AQ to Iraq, there was no connection. They made a connection when AQ decided to fight us on Iraqi soil. The WMD's were absolutely real... Just ask the Kurds. Just ask John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Madeleine Alright, among other notables, who are on film speaking about the reality of Hussein's effort to amass WMD's."If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998."(Saddam Hussein) will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998."We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program." -- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle and John Kerry, among others, Oct. 9, 1998."Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998."There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, Oct. 10, 2002.They weren't figments of the imagination. It was a credible threat. The Democrats just used this to their advantage and recanted their statements because they wanted a Dem in office. That's so transparently obvious that I shouldn't even have to mention it.Unfortunately, no one will ever know what would have happened if the US didn't go in. Iraq is a mess. I don't doubt it. But in retrospect, looking at Churchill and Roosevelt, they paid a hefty price for not going after Germany soon enough. Whether you like Bush or not, that was the motivation. There is no such thing as strictly humanitarian efforts. Countries only do what is in the best interests of themselves and their allies. Even the staunchest conservative shouldn't have the wool pulled over their eyes and believe that Vietnam or Iraq was strictly a humanitarian effort. Its just not true. No, the US will be no more in a decade or two.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Don't bring all those quotes from Democrats up. They don't count for some odd reason.Nah, not so much.

Yeah, that's usually the way it works from my perspective.

But there is NO idication that Saddam rejected peace. But he didn't. And we never found any. Please point out where that says or evenm impies invading Iraq? Again, please point out where that says or implies invasion.I can continue down the lists but all you have is the classic tactic of quotemining, the 30 second spot for the non-thinkers and ignorant. That might be an interesting discussion if it had ANYTHING to do with what I said and you even quoted what I said. Well, I think it will take somewhat longer than that but I do agree that the current crop of conservatives, particularly the religious right are well on the way to destroying the US.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This is the second time I've explained it and still your not getting it. The IRA attempted to incapacitate through fear: blowing up targets in England. When they paused the campaign or were prevented from carrying it out people went straight back to normal. There were no aftershocks - the incapacitation lasted more or less as long as the terror.The difference here is that there is no "normal" to go back to should a relatively small scale attack succeed. 3 seperate attacks involving 10 planes falling into the sea would paralyse air travel and its associated industries long enough to cause their death (the mechanics of which have been already outlined). And after it dies, who is going to get back into the airline business? What do the holiday centres of the world do when no one is flying to them? Millions upon millions would be put out of work by the collapse of the airline industry. All for 3 or so terrorist strikes. That's what I call a bargain.Small strikes to a complex system (the worlds economy) > massive, long lasting damage. The devastation isn't caused by the strikes themselves - it is the weight of the complex structures, which such strike cause to wobble, which brings those structures down It's the same with oil. A relatively small number of devastating attacks to key oil facilities and we are in real trouble. Have a look at reserves held by most nations in case of severe disruption: 60-90 days and thats it. One recent (clumsy) attempt on one Saudi facility, if it has succeeded in causing cessation of output, would have cut Saudi oil in half. A fire in an oil facility isn't hard to start - and you wouldn't be expecting to put the fire out and have things running in 60-90 days either. Its not like I'm making this up.What if? | The Economist On this point at least, I can't say that I disagree with him..This form of terrorism aims at incapacitation through collapse of heavy structures. It's anything but dumb. Its very, very smart in fact. Brilliantly simple.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

"(Saddam Hussein) will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998.

---

quote:

---

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program." -- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle and John Kerry, among others, Oct. 9, 1998.

---

I think "air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program" is the part that implies invading Iraq. Quotes are powerful, especially when someone changes their tune about a very important issue just for the sake of politics and not for the sake of the people's safety. Don't you think its odd that scathing critics of WMD's and the AQ/Iraq connection make comments like:"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." --Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002

quote:

---

There is no such thing as strictly humanitarian efforts.

---

"The US went into Somalia for valid reasons, humanitarian reason, to bring in food and health care. -Jar (Message 126

quote:

---

No, the US will be no more in a decade or two.

---

I think it has to do with the infiltration of secular humanism. Afterall, its the secular behavior that Wahhabi Islam abhors, not the people of the book.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Well, let's try to stick somewhat close to the topic. And once again, may I ask you to actually read what I write and to stop making up your own versions of what I have said.No where did I say strictly humanitarian. I just plain did not use the word strictly so bringing that up is just another red herring.I asked you to point to where a quote said or implied invasion. Here is the quote. You replied: You may well think so but it is VERY clear from reading it that invasion is NOT implied. It is VERY clear and limited, "(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites)".The other stuff, for example the picture, is also simply an attempt at misdirection.The quote said that Saddam would use the WMDs again, again. That is the key word.You have even quoted it several times now. The facts though are that he did NOT use them again, because he didn't have them.No one has argued that he did not use them in the past.But he did not use them again.Finally, I said: to which you replied:

quote:

---

I think it has to do with the infiltration of secular humanism. Afterall, its the secular behavior that Wahhabi Islam abhors, not the people of the book.

---

It may well be secular states that Wahhabi Islam abors, but I don't see any direct threat to the continuation of the US from them. I do see a major threat from those particularly in the current crop of conservatives (both Christian and Republican) that are supporting the errosion of those key freedoms that make the US somewhat different.The question now is where do we go from here. The Current Crop of Christian Conservatives (CCCC for short) have gotten us into a mess in Afghanistan, Iraq and at home. The US has pretty much just cut and run from Afghanistan, leaving our allies like Great Britain in the lurch as you saw in the news article I showed you.The time has coming IMHO for some basic changes.First we should be talking with Kurds in the North, Shia in the South, and Sunni in the center.We should make them an offer.In return for partition of the State of Iraq into three autonomous zones (see the maps already drawn up and that have even been published here) the US will immediately begin removing all troops from Iraq.The US will place an order for oil at 10% above opec price provided that the oil is generated in the Kurdish and Shia areas and payment made through the Sunni central zone.The Sunni zone will be responsible for the maintenance and security of the oil transportation facilities as well as the infrastructure for government and commerce in all three areas.At the same time the US should grant Most Favored Nation status to the Palestinians, offer tuition free education at any US College to all Palestinians, offer $300,000,000.00 per year for a minimum ten year stretch to the Palestinians to be earmarked for infrastructure improvements to include roads, bridges, air port facilities, port facilities, schools, hospitals and medical facilities.We should offer similar terms to Lebanon and to Syria.Edited by jar, : change sub-title

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I said the reason the US went into Somalia was to capture warlords, one in particular. You claimed that Clinton brought the Army into Somalia for humanitarian reasons and that it was 'honorable.' Lets get real here. You don't send Rangers and Delta Force special operators to conduct humanitarian efforts right smack dab in the middle of Mogadishu. That's why I said the US, nor any country, go into conflicts for stirctly humanitarian efforts. They just don't. Believe me, the US and France, Germany, Spain, or whoever else has ample chances to fulfill this act of pure philanthropy on every coner of the globe. In other words, I'm asking you to spare the sympathies as if the Clinton Admin did for the 'honor.' They did for the same reason any other country would-- out of its own interests.

quote:

---

I think "air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program" is the part that implies invading Iraq.

---

When someone thinks of 'invasion,' does it not invoke hostile actions? Of course it does. Sending missles into a country is a hostile action, whether it be retaliatory or otherwise, is a hostile action. Stop trying to derail the argument with the hair splitting. No, misdirection would be the AP and Reuters, in particular. You said that Saddam didn't kill his own people nor we find WMD's. You were only correct about the latter assessment. Yeah, and I'm showing how Democrats and Republicans both knew that Saddam had WMD's and that they both viewed it as a credible threat to the peace and stability of many nations. I then went on to expand the argument to include how everyone has selective memories about the Democrats support of the invasion....... I'm just refreshing everyone's memory. Okay.... True or false: Has Saddam ever had WMD's, ever? True or false: Has he used those weapons in the past, even on his own people? Was not half the world, including the UN who had weapons inspectors as their watchdogs, reporting that Saddam was building up his arsenal post-Gulf War? Saddam's own military has confided in the US and informed them that they are being housed in Syria. Because the world was breathing down his neck! You act like his reasoning was because he's a nice guy. He didn't do it because invasion was upon him and he was informed of that. Wow.... Just, wow.... You know, this was the same mentality that was espoused prior to 9/11. Big mistake. I always knew it was coming. I was following Bin Laden and Al Qaeda long before 9/11 was ever cooked up and I always knew they'd come back. So, you don't see Wabbi extremists as a credible threat? Maybe I'll send you some footage of beheadings, or remind you of all the plots that have been foiled by the US, UK, Pakistan, etc. You see conservatives as threat more dangerous than terrorism? I see.... Any specific reasons? There is still a large presence of US special operations forces in Afghanistan. Nobody is being left in the lurch. You seem to forget that the UK is also in Iraq, so if they are stretched thin then they need to take that up with their high ranking officers to ensure they have the proper gear needed to win their campaign. Because Iraq is one country, not three. This just adds to the element of sectarianism. Besides, who is the US going to strike a deal with? Its the people who are either going to stand with or against proposed changes like that. Why did change the subject about Palestinians? And why should the US pay for the tuition of Palestinians when most Americans don't even have that unbelievably charitable deed offered to them? Why not help Palestine build their own universities? Why? Why these three nations, that promote state-terrorism, as opposed to some dienfranchised African or Asian country?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Once again you have misrepresented what I have said.I will continue to read your postings on occasion and should I become convinced that you can read what folk say, may consider responding to you again.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion