Agreed, however In europe there was almost nobody fighting against thge americans(except for the germans). And in Iraq there is a lot of fighting. But this is not an importent discussion. I know you are a reasonable man, So i know you do see a difference between europe after WW2 and the iraq nowadays. And that was what i tried to show Bigtexxx(who still hasn't answered my question).
Yes, of course I meant the Iraq War of George W. Bush. I'll edit it now. Just got back here for a moment, and will read the rest of your post tomorrow. (geez!)
Agreed, I am not saying that Europe immediately after WW2 and Iraq are exactly the same. I am saying, however, that even in such a situation as post WW2 Europe there was significant instability in the aftermath of the conflict, including insurgencies. I point that out because its my impression that people believe everything was quiet once Germany surrendered, and that is not so.
This is just your theory right? So you're saying attacking Iraq was a favor/appeasement to Osama Bin Laden/Al Queda? Isn't that treason?
I didn't read this entire thread so I apologize if I bring up redundant points. I just wanted to point out that the main reason we have any troops in the Middle East is because we want to prop up friendly regimes in order to guarantee a steady flow of oil for our country. Maybe instead of spending billions of dollars to invade Iraq, we could've used that money to figure out a permanent alternative energy solution. At the very least, we could've probably switched a lot of our automobiles to hybrids. That is really the only way to fundamentally solve the Middle East problem. Osama Bin Laden is buying bombs using the money you paid at the local Chevron station. Cut off the world's dependence on oil and I'll bet the Middle East terrorists will be too busy looking for food to attack us.
That is the one thing I didn't understand about Hayes' post. I was sure he wasn't saying that our bases in SA were only there to contain Saddam. If that were the case we wouldn't still be talking about where else we can station our soldiers in the region more than a year after Saddam's removal. You are absolutely correct about why our soldiers are there. I have been re-reading Hayes' posts sure that I was missing something.
A small small start of the background- check out the footnotes from this one site. - link 1991-1997: Oil Investment in Central Asia Follows Soviet Collapse The Soviet Union collapses in 1991, creating several new nations in Central Asia. Major US oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Texaco, Unocal, BP Amoco, Shell, and Enron, directly invest billions in these Central Asian nations, bribing heads of state to secure equity rights in the huge oil reserves in these regions. The oil companies commit to $35 billion in future direct investments in Kazakhstan. It is believed at the time that these oil fields will have an estimated $6 trillion potential value. US companies own approximately 75 percent of the rights. These companies, however, face the problem of having to pay exorbitant prices to Russia for use of the Russian pipelines to get the oil out. [New Yorker, 7/9/01; Asia Times, 1/26/02] People and organizations involved: Unocal, Enron, Soviet Union, ExxonMobil, Russia, Kazakhstan, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP, Texaco November 1993: Enron Power Plant Creates Demand for an Afghanistan Pipeline The Dabhol power plant. The Indian government approves construction of Enron's Dabhol power plant, located near Bombay on the west coast of India. Enron has invested $3 billion, the largest single foreign investment in India's history. Enron owns 65 percent of the Dabhol liquefied natural gas power plant, intended to provide one-fifth of India's energy needs by 1997. [Asia Times, 1/18/01; Indian Express, 2/27/00] It is the largest gas-fired power plant in the world. Earlier in the year, the World Bank concluded that the plant was “not economically viable” and refused to invest in it. [New York Times, 3/20/01] People and organizations involved: World Bank, India, Enron 1995-November 2001: US Lobbies India Over Enron Power Plant Enron's $3 billion Dabhol, India power plant runs into trouble in 1995 when the Indian government temporarily cancels an agreement. The plant is projected to get its energy from the proposed Afghan pipeline and deliver it to the Indian government. Enron leader Ken Lay travels to India with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown the same year, and heavy lobbying by US officials continue in subsequent years. By summer 2001, the National Security Council leads a “Dabhol Working Group” with officials from various cabinet agencies to get the plant completed and functioning. US pressure on India intensifies until shortly before Enron files for bankruptcy in December 2001. US officials later claim their lobbying merely supported the $640 million of US government investment in the plant. But critics say the plant received unusually strong support under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. [New York Daily News, 1/18/02; Washington Post, 1/19/02] People and organizations involved: Clinton administration, Donald L. Evans, India, Kenneth Lay, National Security Council, Bush administration, Enron September-October 1995: Unocal Obtains Turkmenistan Pipeline Deal Oil company Unocal signs an $8 billion deal with Turkmenistan to construct two pipelines (one for oil, one for gas), as part of a larger plan for two pipelines intended to transport oil and gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and into Pakistan. Before proceeding further, however, Unocal needs to execute agreements with Pakistan and Afghanistan; Pakistan and Ahmed Shah Massoud's government in Afghanistan, however, have already signed a pipeline deal with an Argentinean company. Henry Kissinger, hired as speaker for a special dinner in New York to announce the Turkmenistan pipeline deal, says the Unocal plan represents a “triumph of hope over experience.” Unocal will later open an office in Kabul, weeks after the Taliban capture of the capital in late 1996 and will interact with the Taliban, seeking support for its pipeline until at least December 1997. [Coll, 2004, pp 301-13, 329, 338, 364-66] People and organizations involved: Ahmed Shah Massoud, Henry A. Kissinger, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taliban, Unocal, Turkmenistan December 1995: Caspian Sea Said to Contain Two-Thirds of World's Known Oil Reserves The American Petroleum Institute asserts that the states bordering the Caspian Sea, north of Afghanistan, contain two-thirds of the world's known reserves, or 659 billion barrels. Such numbers spur demand for an Afghan pipeline. However, by April 1997, estimates drop to 179 billion barrels. [Middle East Journal, 9/22/00] This is still substantial, but the estimates continue to drop in future years (see November 1, 2002). May 1996: US Seeks Stability in Afghanistan for Unocal Pipeline Robin Raphel, Deputy Secretary of State for South Asia, speaks to the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister about Afghanistan. She says that the US government “now hopes that peace in the region will facilitate US business interests,” such as the proposed Unocal gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. [Coll, 2004, pp 330] People and organizations involved: Unocal, Robin Raphel, Russia June 24, 1996: Uzbekistan Cuts a Deal with Enron Uzbekistan signs a deal with Enron “that could lead to joint development of the Central Asian nation's potentially rich natural gas fields.” [Houston Chronicle, 6/25/96] The $1.3 billion venture teams Enron with the state companies of Russia and Uzbekistan. [Houston Chronicle, 6/30/96] On July 8, 1996, the US government agrees to give $400 million to help Enron and an Uzbek state company develop these natural gas fields. [Oil and Gas Journal, 7/8/96] People and organizations involved: Enron, Uzbekistan August 13, 1996: Unocal, Delta Oil Plan Afghan Pipeline Unocal and Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia reach agreement with state companies in Turkmenistan and Russia to build a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan; the agreement is finalized in 1997. [Unocal website, 8/13/96] People and organizations involved: Saparmurat Niyazov, Unocal September 27, 1996: Victorious Taliban Supported by Pakistan; Viewed by US, Unocal as Stabilizing Force The Taliban conquer Kabul [Associated Press, 8/19/02] , establishing control over much of Afghanistan. A surge in the Taliban's military successes at this time is later attributed to an increase in direct military assistance from Pakistan's ISI. [New York Times, 12/8/01] The oil company Unocal is hopeful that the Taliban will stabilize Afghanistan and allow its pipeline plans to go forward. According to some reports, “preliminary agreement [on the pipeline] was reached between the [Taliban and Unocal] long before the fall of Kabul . ... Oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America's, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan.” [Daily Telegraph, 10/11/96] The 9/11 Commission later concludes that some State Department diplomats are willing to “give the Taliban a chance” because it might be able to bring stability to Afghanistan, which would allow a Unocal oil pipeline to be built through the country. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04] People and organizations involved: Taliban, Unocal, Pakistan Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, 9/11 Commission, US Department of State October 7, 1996: Future Bush Envoy to Afghanistan Wants US to Help Taliban Unify Country, Build Pipeline In a Washington Post op-ed, Zalmay Khalilzad calls on the US to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan. “It is time for the United States to reengage. ...The Taliban does not practice the anti-US style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran — it is closer to the Saudi model.” He calls on the US to help the Taliban “put Afghanistan on a path toward peace,” noting that continuing violence “has been a source of regional instability and an obstacle to building pipelines to bring Central Asian oil and gas to Pakistan and the world markets.” [Washington Post, 10/7/96] However, by 2000, Khalilzad will sour on the Taliban. In a speech in March 2000, he will state, “Afghanistan was and is a possible corridor for the export of oil and gas from the Central Asian states down to Pakistan and to the world. A California company called Unocal was interested in exploring that option, but because of the war in Afghanistan, because of the instability that's there, those options, or that option at least, has not materialized.” [Los Angeles World Affairs Council, 3/9/00] People and organizations involved: Taliban, Unocal, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, United States October 11, 1996: Afghan Pipeline Key to ‘One of the Great Prizes of the 21st Century’ The Daily Telegraph publishes an interesting article about pipeline politics in Afghanistan. “Behind the tribal clashes that have scarred Afghanistan lies one of the great prizes of the 21st century, the fabulous energy reserves of Central Asia. ... ‘The deposits are huge,’ said a diplomat from the region. ‘Kazakhstan alone may have more oil than Saudi Arabia. Turkmenistan is already known to have the fifth largest gas reserves in the world.’ ” [Daily Telegraph, 10/11/96] August 1997: CIA Monitors Central Asia for Oil Reserves The CIA creates a secret task force to monitor Central Asia's politics and gauge its wealth. Covert CIA officers, some well-trained petroleum engineers, travel through southern Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan to sniff out potential oil reserves. [Time, 5/4/98] People and organizations involved: Central Intelligence Agency October 27, 1997: Halliburton Announces Turkmenistan Project; Unocal and Delta Oil Form Consortium Halliburton, a company headed by future Vice President Dick Cheney, announces a new agreement to provide technical services and drilling for Turkmenistan. The press release mentions, “Halliburton has been providing a variety of services in Turkmenistan for the past five years.” On the same day, a consortium to build a pipeline through Afghanistan is formed. It is called CentGas, and the two main partners are Unocal and Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia. [Halliburton press release, 10/27/97; CentGas press release, 10/27/97] People and organizations involved: Richard ("Dick") Cheney, Energy Information Agency, Halliburton, Inc., Turkmenistan November 1997: Enron and bin Laden Family Team Up for Project Industry newsletter reports that Saudi Arabia has abandoned plans for open bids on a $2 billion power plant near Mecca, deciding that the government will build it instead. Interestingly, one of the bids was made by a consortium of Enron, the Saudi Binladin Group (run by Osama's family), and Italy's Ansaldo Energia. [Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections, 1/22/98] People and organizations involved: Saudi Arabia, Enron, Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Saudi Binladin Group December 1997: Unocal Establishes Pipeline Training Facility Near bin Laden's Compound Unocal pays University of Nebraska $900,000 to set up a training facility near bin Laden's Kandahar compound, to train 400 Afghan teachers, electricians, carpenters and pipe fitters in anticipation of using them for their pipeline in Afghanistan. One hundred and fifty students are already attending classes. [Daily Telegraph, 12/14/97; Coll, 2004, pp 364] People and organizations involved: Osama bin Laden, Turkey, Unocal December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas Taliban representatives in Texas, 1997. Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children ‘despicable,’ appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.” A BBC regional correspondent says that “the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.” [BBC, 12/4/97; Daily Telegraph, 12/14/97] People and organizations involved: Clinton administration, Taliban, Unocal, George W. Bush Early 1998: US Official Meets with Taliban; Promote Afghan Pipeline Bill Richardson, the US Ambassador to the UN, meets Taliban officials in Kabul. (All such meetings are illegal, because the US still officially recognizes the government the Taliban ousted as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan.) US officials at the time call the oil and gas pipeline project a “fabulous opportunity” and are especially motivated by the “prospect of circumventing Iran, which offers another route for the pipeline.” [Boston Globe, 9/20/01] People and organizations involved: Bill Richardson, Taliban February 12, 1998: Unocal VP Advocates Afghan Pipeline Before Congress Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca—later to become a Special Ambassador to Afghanistan—testifies before the House of Representatives that until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan, the trans-Afghan pipeline will not be built. He suggests that with a pipeline through Afghanistan, the Caspian basin could produce 20 percent of all the non-OPEC oil in the world by 2010. [House International Relations Committee testimony, 2/12/98] People and organizations involved: John J. Maresca, Unocal, US Congress June 1998: Enron Shuts Down Uzbekistan Pipeline Project Enron's agreement from 1996 (see June 24, 1996) to develop natural gas with Uzbekistan is not renewed. Enron closes its office there. The reason for the “failure of Enron's flagship project” is an inability to get the natural gas out of the region. Uzbekistan's production is “well below capacity” and only 10 percent of its production is being exported, all to other countries in the region. The hope was to use a pipeline through Afghanistan, but “Uzbekistan is extremely concerned at the growing strength of the Taliban and its potential impact on stability in Uzbekistan, making any future cooperation on a pipeline project which benefits the Taliban unlikely.” A $12 billion pipeline through China is being considered as one solution, but that wouldn't be completed until the end of the next decade at the earliest. [Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections, 10/12/98] People and organizations involved: China, Enron, Taliban, Uzbekistan
i think you are refering to the werewolves. they were the last hangers on after germany surrendered. they lived in the woods and mountains (in true guerrilla-style). alot of them were hitler youth and the more delusioned nazi's, who believed that they would rise up again. they did manage to pull off a few minor attacks and killed a handful of g.i.'s, but they were never a real threat. they were very poorly armed and had to scavenge for food to survive. but they were not nearly the threat that we see in iraq, did not have hardly any support amongst the population and after a few months were virtually gone. yes, there were insurgents, but i would hardly call it "significant instability", like we see in iraq.
indirectly, yes. bush took out the only secular country in a region surrounded by fundamentalist muslim governments. only time will tell, but it seems that the majority of the iraqis want to have a religious based government, very similar to our pals in iran.
Again I think I follow you and agree that there was a costs to containment the problem with your analysis that I see is that you've considering invasion as a solution to the problems of containment when so far it hasn't. Yes Saddam has been removed and we've moved most of our forces out of SA but OBL's anger at US troops was more than just about US troops in SA but also about US troops in Muslim lands in general. Its like saying if some squatters started camping out on your porch and you come out there and yell at them to get off your porch. They pack up and move into your living room and then say, "Problem solved we're off of your porch." In terms of the costs argument as even you agree terrorism is still very prevalent and is even increasing so the costs of terrorism haven't decreased. Also since even the Admin. warns another 9/11 tragedy is very likely the potential damage from that is still very much out there. This is why I say you're right that costs are an issue but you also need to look at context. Under a causality argument the invasion of Iraq is a further continuation of the costs of dealing with Saddam going all the way back Gulf War I and it hasn't offered yet much tangible benefits. So if you're comparing costs you should consider benefits too. I will agree the benefits of containment are few if any but the invasion of occupation of Iraq has also brought essentially no benefit while doing nothing to address the costs from increased military expenditures and the threat of terrorism.
Sadly, Batman posting articles by Frank-Rich does not a fully functioning Batman make. it's a bit jarring to see one of the best posters in the D&D succumb to the paranoid ravings of a former theater critic. it's a bit like seeing Doc Rocket post comments from a RealGM fantasy trade thread. i can't really get that exorcised by it it's so pathetic... ...that said, i will briefly comment, since Batman Rich called me out by name (i've been traveling for the past several days and have had limited web access, so BM-R, please excuse the tardy response)... Am I "glad" the US invaded iraq (not "bush", america invaded)? of course not. do i support it? yes, and so should you, regardless of your feelings about how we got there. i'm not interested in having that debate with you since it's clear there's nothing that could be said to change your mind. we should all want the US to win, since it's the critical battleground in the WOT. the targets of the terror attacks in iraq are not our military, it's the american public. the terrorists know they'll never be able to defeat our military, so they hope to defeat us at home. it's now clear they've beaten the democratic party. i find it remarkable that the left not only accepts it's defeat, but revels in it. the left sees the war as a political issue, not as a patriotic mission. no wonder the democrats are a minority party.
why would we support something that is wrong again? you are not inerested becasue you know the war was not worth it from the start.. and majority of america changed their mind becasue its a fact.. why would we change our min if all the facts say we are correct? Iraq was not but now it is because you guys messed it up.. why can't we say we told you so again? Bill Clinton had consensual oral sex and you all said we told you so... no wmds, 1800 dead, 300 billion spent, iraq will soon be like iran, and everyone signing up to be terrorists and we can say we told you so?
The left most definitely sees the war as a patriotic issue, and one that should also be used in elections. We need to restore American principles in our leadership and the way our nation is governed. I also beleive that a firm opposition to the war does not at all strengthen the terrorists but weakens them. It shows that the most powerful nation in the world allows voices of dissent to ring out freely when they disagree with leadership. That goes strongly against the idea of a totalitarian fundamentalist Islamic govt. It shows them that the way to power is through freedom and recognizing the rights and opinions everyone inside the nation. What would seemingly help the terrorists more are when people try and silence dissentors and accuse them of being unpatriotic and on the side of the terrorists. Terrorists can point to that and hold it up as a lack of freedom from a nation that claims to want to export freedom.
who's trying to silenbce dissenters? certainly not me- knock yourself out. but the best way to "support the troops" is to bid them godspeed and success in their mission. that, not coincidentally, is also the best way to ensure safety for all americans, and the freedom to criticize our government that you (rightly) so highly cherish.
Since when would bringing our troops home from Iraq or anywhere right now result in our loss of rights? Our freedom of speech has not been threatened since WWII.
