Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,421 Year: 6,678/9,624 Month: 18/238 Week: 18/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1654 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 181 of 191 (359406)
10-27-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Tal
10-26-2006 2:51 PM


There still is no "GWOT" (TAL's head is still in the sand)
no amount of information, sourcing, facts, or logical conclusions will matter to someone like RAZD. Saying things like "FDR is responsible for all soldier's deaths is WWII..."
Strawman misrepresentation is the badge of poor debate. FDR was responsible for sending US soldiers to the war, and I'm willing to bet he took responsibility for it and their deaths.
A true leader is responsible for the people he leads. Nor does he try to hide the number of deaths and injuries.
RAZD isn't just in left field, he's not even playing the same game.
And I can't help but notice that you haven't answered a single point I made that refuted your claims, preferring to play this ad hominum card. Another stock in trade badge of a bad argument.
I used information that showed that the majority of Iraqi people were not happy with the US presence (to put it mildly) as opposed to your colloquial anecdote.
You post websites that show obvious bias and poor control in selection of information to include.
Your maps also show more "terrorist" attacks since the invasion of Iraq (early 2003), more change from 2002 (before invasion) to 2003 (after invasion) than from 2001 to 2002 (no influence of invasion). And increasing every year since (the last map has only two months in 2006 and it shows more than in 2001)
Your maps show more attacks on the US in New York Pennsylvania, Florida, Mississippi and California in 2002 than in 2001 - and attacks in Texas in 2003 and 2004. When you click on the 2002 information you see the same table as shown for 2001, and the two Texas items are also the same (1 death?): an obvious doubling up of data? or just poor control? How many other sites are also duplicated in order to make things look worse than they really are?
I can conclude these things from your maps:
  1. There has been a larger increase in terrorism since invading Iraq than there was between 2001 and 2002,
  2. We can't judge the status of terrorist attacks before 2001 because that information is omitted (for reasons of political bias eh?),
  3. We can't separate out the effects of the invasion of Iraq from the worldwide trends in terrorism from this limited data and poor analysis,
  4. There are obvious errors in the data or that it has been incredibly manipulated and stretched to fit an a priori conclusion.
  5. That these maps are essentially useless.
What we DON'T have are any maps of what it would look like without the invasion of Iraq, so that skews the data used no matter how you cut it.
And we still do not have a country called "terrorism" with soldiers and assets to attack, control and conquer, as you need to have a real war (as in the 1st & 2nd war against Germany) in order to bring an end to hostilities from that country. As such there can be no end to this conflict misrepresented as "war on terror" through military means, objectives, actions or whatever, no matter how long or how many people you involve in it or resources you throw at it.
You can only end terrorism through social means, including police actions and the application of basic human rights, freedoms, equality and justice. That is what has worked in the past, that is what will work in the future. Every place a "military" type action is used the terrorism gets worse. Therefore "war" is not only a BAD model it is the WRONG model if not the WORST model to use.
A lesson we (should have) learned from Vietnam is that politicians should not run a war. Otherwise we would have 536 different views on how to run a given operation. This is the opposite of the principle of war known as "unity of command." There is 1 man that is Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
What is really humorous about this is that you substitute 1 politician for 536 ... and don't say why he\she should be any better informed, rational or capable of making the correct decisions.
The benefit of having more than one person involved in decisions of national importance is that you lessen the likelihood of having someone make a completely foolish decision. And the evidence is that Schwubbia makes little else.
If they are talking about a phased withdrawl of troops, well that has been the plan all along.
There are these basic things to consider:
  1. What happens if we withdraw as soon as possible (to get our people out safely)?
  2. Is that happening already?
  3. If YES, then withdrawing doesn't make it any worse and may make it better.
  4. and if so then why not proceed with (1) now?
  5. If NO, then:
  6. Will our staying make things better or worse?
  7. If WORSE, then when do we reach the point in (3)?
  8. and then when do we proceed with (1)?
  9. If BETTER, then what defines when things are "good enough" that we proceed with (1) anyway?
All paths lead to (1) - OR to staying "indefinitely" forever. But without defining the steps that get you out of the situation the default decision is to stay "indefinitely" forever. It's like the old hackneyed slogan "If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail" - and that is certainly what we have been seeing so far from the Botch Administration eh?
Is Iraq really any different than Afghanistan, where it seems things have been declared "good enough" that we can leave?
What would change if we withdrew from Iraq being replaced by NATO troops, but stayed in Afghanistan?
I don't know what information you are using to come up with this, but US troop levels are staying at around 20,000. We are not extricating ourselves. We are simply trying to share the burden with our allies, which is what allies generally do.
I think you may have mis-read something somewhere.
Are you saying that we are not withdrawing or reducing troops in any way from Afghanistan, but that there are massive reinforcements by NATO troops moving into the area?
You mean we are losing Afghanistan the same way we lost Iraq (poor leadership, mismanagement, bad decisions, etcetera - in case you were wondering)?
Or are you misrepresenting something here (again).
Enjoy.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Tal, posted 10-26-2006 2:51 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Tal, posted 10-27-2006 11:37 PM RAZD has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 182 of 191 (359419)
10-27-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by RAZD
10-27-2006 9:57 PM


Re: There still is no "GWOT" (TAL's head is still in the sand)
Any point to that post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2006 9:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2006 5:14 PM Tal has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 191 (359489)
10-28-2006 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Silent H
10-27-2006 6:17 AM


Re: Reply to OP
While I wholly disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, as well as how we have managed it, I agree that we cannot pull troops out. I think people like Sheehan and many dems are making a mistake in this regard. It is oversimplistic.
The problem, I think, is that people forget the frenetic tone that led to the war to begin with. As I've unequivocally proven, both high level Dems and Reps were all for the ousting of Hussein who routinely ignored UN sanctions and policies. What is regrettable, is that Rummsfeld, who's been described by senior officials as botching the war effort, has tried to connect dots that didn't exist prior to the invasion. In his defense, he wasn't the only one who believed it to be credible. That figure also includes other Reps and Dems. But, lest we forget, our opinions about the war can only be as good as the intelligence we recieve. Maybe the NSA and CIA need to step up and take some flack for their handling of evidence.
Nonetheless, as you shared, simply leaving Iraq high and dry at this juncture would be incredibly irresponsible-- even if you disagree with the war. Something that drastic is just an emotional response, not a well thought plan of action. Sheehan is used to being led by emotion to fuel her personal crusade. I don't see any real vision in her beliefs. She apparently wants some sort of vindication. She obviously isn't the only one. An exit strategy needs to be devised, not some oversimplified version of events that some people are pushing for.
The number of remaining troops seems irrelevant as calls to turn Iraq over to mainly foreign control and oversight (such as NATO) were also considered cut n run and against general US military policy.
I can't help but point out the irony. Certain individuals claim that Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda but Afghanistan does. Afghanistan is a fairly stable country. Most of AQ is either running minor operations in Afghanistan by hanging around the Pakistan border or they are mostly in Iraq. Aside from which, the US is still very much present in Afghanistan. Most special operation efforts are being run out of this country. And that's all that is really necessary due to the terrain.
Well I'm not going to say I've seen military intelligence on it, but I have seen discussions on this by journalists in the area as well as by Afghan gov't leaders. They say the Taliban is regaining strength. I think Musharaf has noted the same. Is there a reason I should doubt them?
Alot of people say that Musharaf has been an ally of convenience so that the US doesn't invade them in their hunt for Bin Laden. They say he plays both sides. I don't know. I know that he's caught numerous Taliban and AQ officials, moreso than any other Muslim nation, bar none. As long as the Afghani gov't can repel the Taliban, that's all that matters at this point. There will be people who find ideological agreement with the Taliban for a long time. You can't just erase their memory from existence.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Silent H, posted 10-27-2006 6:17 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by nwr, posted 10-28-2006 1:27 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 188 by Silent H, posted 10-29-2006 6:21 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6484
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 184 of 191 (359492)
10-28-2006 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Hyroglyphx
10-28-2006 12:51 PM


Re: Reply to OP
The problem, I think, is that people forget the frenetic tone that led to the war to begin with.
What frenetic tone was that?
I saw a cool calm tone in the reports by Hans Blick, indicating that there was no imminent threat from WMD in Iraq. Or by "frenetic tone", do you mean the stream of dishonest propoganda streaming from the white house?
As I've unequivocally proven, both high level Dems and Reps were all for the ousting of Hussein who routinely ignored UN sanctions and policies.
You cannot have proven that, for some - admittedly too few - of the high level Dems were opposed to this war from the beginning.
But, lest we forget, our opinions about the war can only be as good as the intelligence we recieve.
There was enough evidence available to the general public, that one could conclude that there was no imminent threat. Anybody who adequately understood the lesson of the Vietnam war could have predicted that this would likely lead to a quagmire.
Maybe the NSA and CIA need to step up and take some flack for their handling of evidence.
I don't know for sure what happened here. It is my impression that both CIA and Dept of State were giving Bush private advice against the war, at the same time that they were showing public support. The flack is properly due to Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, the three corners of the axis of evil. This was an unjust immoral war from the get-go. This was a war "justified" by a tissue of lies.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2006 12:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2006 1:49 PM nwr has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 191 (359496)
10-28-2006 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by nwr
10-28-2006 1:27 PM


Re: Reply to OP
What frenetic tone was that?
The frenetic tone I'm speaking about is that Iraq while Iraq was continuing to defy UN orders, the US was attacked on its own soil.
You cannot have proven that, for some - admittedly too few - of the high level Dems were opposed to this war from the beginning.
From the beginning, aye? What do you consider 'the beginning' to be? Pick a card, any card.
There was enough evidence available to the general public, that one could conclude that there was no imminent threat.
Tell that to the Democrats in the film. I would expect a blatant disregard of safety in the name of politicking to be more egregious offense.
I don't know for sure what happened here. It is my impression that both CIA and Dept of State were giving Bush private advice against the war, at the same time that they were showing public support. The flack is properly due to Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, the three corners of the axis of evil. This was an unjust immoral war from the get-go. This was a war "justified" by a tissue of lies.
I think your uber-leftist views are clouding what otherwise might be good judgement on your part. You do realize that the 'axis of evil' can do nothing without Congess' approval don't you? Its not like these three men have the ability to wage an indiscriminate war by themselves. Now, you could say that all three are incompotent and that they aren't fit for office. That holds a little bit of water. But your suggestion that the intelligence presented to them by the NSA or CIA bore no reflection on their decision would be ridiculous.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by nwr, posted 10-28-2006 1:27 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by nwr, posted 10-28-2006 2:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 190 by kuresu, posted 10-29-2006 5:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6484
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 186 of 191 (359499)
10-28-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Hyroglyphx
10-28-2006 1:49 PM


Re: Reply to OP
The frenetic tone I'm speaking about is that Iraq while Iraq was continuing to defy UN orders, the US was attacked on its own soil.
Likewise, while creationists were defying courts, the US was attacked on its own soil.
If the administration's "logic" is as foolish as yours, it is no wonder that we are in deep doo doo.
What do you consider 'the beginning' to be? Pick a card, any card.
My recollection is that the beginning of public discussion was around December 2001, though I could be off by a month or two. It is also my recollection that Byrd (West Virginia) and Durbin (Illinois) were both against it.
I'm not excusing the dems who supported it. Some of them allowed themselves to be befuddled by the misinformation coming from white house, and some of them lacked the courage to stand up for what they knew was right.
I think your uber-leftist views ...
I'm not "uber-leftist".
Avoiding unnecessary foreign entanglement is a conservative principle. Basing decisions on a careful examination of evidence, instead of indulging in wishful thinking, is a conservative principle.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2006 1:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6069 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 187 of 191 (359596)
10-29-2006 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Tal
10-27-2006 8:44 PM


Re: Reply to OP
The NATO commander now reports to SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) who will always be a US 4 star officer (either General or Admiral). That person reports to SECDEF. So instead of reporting to the CENTCOM 4 star, the new CG reports a different 4 star, but its still a US officer. Unity of command is intact.
Let me start by saying I may very well have been mistaken regarding the degree of control of US troops by foreign commanders. The above kind of information is useful and I'd be interested in seeing more of it (especially where it can be documented).
However, this does not seem to be wholly accurate regarding what I was discussing, nor answer all points I brought up.
As far as I understand it, ISAF involves tactical operational command. I find I was incorrect that it will always be run by foeign commanders (a direct admission of error on that score) but it is currently run by non US commanders and will be again after the next commander (who will be US) gives up his role within 6 months. Doesn't that mean that our troops (regardless of theoretical connection to higher comman structures) are run in a very practical sense by foreign commands?
And if what you say is true, it raises the question of why reps have been so negative about NATO, or other allied oversight of past conflicts. In every case it was argued that such a thing would result in US troops, not to mention missions, being run by nonUS elements, which is not conservative military policy.
I'm not understanding how that could have been argued in the past, if what you say is true... unless of course the error I thought I was discussing was not the one I should have been discussing.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Tal, posted 10-27-2006 8:44 PM Tal has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6069 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 188 of 191 (359599)
10-29-2006 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Hyroglyphx
10-28-2006 12:51 PM


Re: Reply to OP
As I've unequivocally proven, both high level Dems and Reps were all for the ousting of Hussein who routinely ignored UN sanctions and policies.
1) You haven't proven what you claimed. While I am certain some dems were for removing Hussein, not all dems felt that way, and many quotes used to suggest certain dems were for the war are simple quote mines.
2) Assuming you made your case, I don't know what that is supposed to mean for me or anything I have said. So alot of people on both sides of the aisle were in error. I am neither a dem nor republican. Anyone making the argument for war was in error.
3) Lots of nations ignore UN sanctions and policies. The question is whether they pose a threat. The Bush administration had at its beginning stated how nonthreatening Iraq was, due to its degraded military status. Nothing changed regarding that fact, not even 9/11 could have changed that.
Maybe the NSA and CIA need to step up and take some flack for their handling of evidence.
I agree, however the Department of State's intelligence org was also part of research and their estimates were right on. So were international intelligence estimates. Their arguments were overrun by the CIA. I would note however that the CIA did NOT argue for and invasion of Iraq, and had suggested openly that that was more likely to trigger his use of, or the spread of WMD material, than not invading.
As a final note on this point, Bush awarded Tenet for his failures with this nation's highest award. Its sort of hard to step up to the plate and admit errors, when none are allowed to exist by presidential commendation.
I can't help but point out the irony. Certain individuals claim that Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda but Afghanistan does. Afghanistan is a fairly stable country.
You seem to have missed the real irony here. Until we invaded Iraq, it was a stable nation and had nothing to do with AQ, and so would not have been a concern on that point. All we'd have to be worrying about is Afghanistan (and AQ elements anywhere BUT Iraq).
Yes, at this point Iraq has something to do with AQ, but only because we totally screwed up and invaded the nation. But it didn't have to be that way.
They say he plays both sides. I don't know. I know that he's caught numerous Taliban and AQ officials, moreso than any other Muslim nation, bar none.
Musharaf helped the Taliban grow to power in Afghanistan and I believe was the only world leader to acknowledge their status as gov't of Afghanistan. His rounding them up now gives no indication of where his ultimate loyalties or capabilities lie.
I might also add that he did not punish a pakistani national caught proliferating the exact WMD tech whose POTENTIAL for leakage the US said was grounds for invading Iraq.
Musharaf is not the only one who is playing both sides of something.
Edited by holmes, : not to note

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2006 12:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1654 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 189 of 191 (359689)
10-29-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Tal
10-27-2006 11:37 PM


Re: There still is no "GWOT" (TAL's head is still in the sand)
One thing it means is that your source is either dishonest or incompetent or ignorant or deluded or whatever at providing good information with intelligent analysis.
One thing it means is that you prefer evidence from such sites, even when the obvious errors are pointed out.
You have refuted no posts that invalidate your claims, and all you have left is this little nit-nat type {reduced to rediculous comment} post:
Any point to that post?
That you have no point left to your posts. They've been refuted and you are unable to defend them further.
Enjoy.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Tal, posted 10-27-2006 11:37 PM Tal has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2762 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 190 of 191 (359693)
10-29-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Hyroglyphx
10-28-2006 1:49 PM


Re: Reply to OP
You do realize that the 'axis of evil' can do nothing without Congess' approval don't you? Its not like these three men have the ability to wage an indiscriminate war by themselves
actually, they can. THe president has the power to use the military w/o congressional approval for something like up to 90 days (it might actually be around 30, can't quite remember).
Any engagement longer than the specified time period does require approval though--but the pres does not have to give a "timetable of events" as to how long his engagment with the enemy is.
that one is due to the vietnam war--we couldn't respond fast enough, or so the logic goes, to the vietnamese at the beginning of the war. so now the prez can go to war, albeit for a short period, without congressional approval.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2006 1:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4377 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 191 of 191 (361437)
11-04-2006 10:10 AM


I don't know about the army but the American business community seems to be gearing up for a cut and run strategy.
BBC NEWS | Americas | US Bechtel wraps up Iraq projects
quote:
One of the biggest US companies involved in reconstruction projects in Iraq has said it is leaving the country after three years of work there. Bechtel Corp - which has finished its last contract - says the security situation in Iraq has made it too difficult to continue operating.
Fifty-two Bechtel employees have been killed and 49 wounded since 2003. The engineering giant was hired by the US government. Its services cost Washington $2.3bn (1.2bn). Bechtel said it would not seek any more work in the country after company's last contract expired earlier this week. Cliff Mumm, Bechtel's president for infrastructure work, said the firm had not expected to be operating in a conflict situation.
He said it was "heartbreaking" to see how security in Iraq had deteriorated. "Did Iraq come out the way you hoped it would?" Mr Mumm was quoted as saying by the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper. "I would say, emphatically, no. And it's heartbreaking," he said.
The San-Francisco-based firm was asked to rebuild Iraq's roads and bridges after the US-led invasion. Bechtel was also involved in building water treatment plants and hospitals and expanding Iraq's power grid.
The company said it had completed all but two of nearly 100 projects in Iraq. Most of its workers were killed while off duty, Bechtel's spokesman Jonathan Marshall was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency. Bechtel employed more than 40,000 workers, mostly Iraqis, at the height of its activity in the country.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024