Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan

I do accept that. But addicts do awful things. Its the way it is - no point in wishing it weren't

you have still failed to provide a compelling argument for this case. All you've done is state that we are trying to shore up the oil supply against fluctuations that would bring us to our knees--and you have yet to show just how the "coalition of the willing" is doing this. As others have said, if this war is truly about oil, then we've royally screwed up our objectives and how we're fighting this war.

---

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.

The idea that it is about oil seems pretty strange and weak. Before the most recent invasion the Iraqi oil was being monitored by the US and UN and sales of it were being controled. It seems that there is actually less stability now then before the invasion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I can't imagine why anybody would think that poverty was the cause of joyriding. This looks to me like a strawman argument. Immediately after 9/11 there was an upwelling of good will toward America and Americans around the world. This could have been used to win the hearts and minds of people around the world.Bush, however, managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. His foolish invasion of Iraq has generated a great deal of hatred and anger. His advocacy of torture and his suspension of habeus corpus have demonstrated to the world that America has no principles. It is hardly surprising that instead of winning the hearts on minds of citizens of the world, we have earned their contempt.And terrorism is up. The Iraq war has been a great recruiting tool for the terrorists. As far as dealing with the problem of now, the Bush policy has been a ghastly failure.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Every objective is carried out with a certain efficiency. 100% efficiency is everyones goal but reality fall short of that. For instance:Compressed air is known to be an expensive way of driving mechanisms. A typical air compressor is about 20% efficient. That is: you put in 100% electricity and get out 1/5th of that in equivilent work in the form of compressed airBut electricity generation itself is inefficient. If you are using oil then the efficiency of oil in/electricity out is 50%. Thus using oil > electicity > compressed air is 10% efficient. Yet compressed air is an essential in industry.Geopolitics is no different. A lot of folk have ideas about this that and the other way to approach things (invade all oil producing nations being your own off the wall idea). In fact you act as best you can. If compressed air is the only thing that will do the job though then the efficiency of it isn't really the question.Oil is critical to the world as we know it - factRisks to oil exist - fact. I have given oneRisks must be countered as soon as they threaten - factObjectives currently met:Large military presence on the ground in the affected zone - doneLetting anyone who needs to know know that you mean business - up to and including invasion - doneGearing up your war machine to react swiftly - doneStabilising world fears on oil supply now and were trouble to break out - doneWinning hearts and minds - its the economy stoopid

You obviously were taking a nap on 9/11Google it

Talk about missing the "now" aspect of the point. "Winning hearts and minds" is a vacuous objective if a relative drop in the ocean (those that dissent) is all that is required to cause a a global wobble.Addressing why they hate you (the West) is long term. That they hate you now and are bent on your destruction is the 'now' issue I was trying to highlight. There was an article in the Irish Times (serious/broadsheet) two days ago regarding the the influential muslim theologian, Sheikh Ysaf al-Qaradawi. Folk are wringing their hands as to whether his pronouncement that suicide bombers are a legitimate weapon of war (but only against Israel mind!!) or not could indict his being an extremist or a moderate (they quote his more moderate tones in defence).In a full 1 page piece they never figured to ask him whether suicide bombing of a supporter of Israel (9/11 being an example of this) was a considered by him to be something that wasn't a giant leap from his stated position.If suicide bombings in Israel are acceptable to him the suicide bombings in a supporter of Israel must be acceptable to himTwiddle you fingers while Rome burns all you like NWR.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Map of Iraqthe one I have a problem with is where are the oil fields in Iraq?
here they aremind telling me where the american forces are? mind telling me what the production level of iraqi oil is?I don't know if anyone knows the answer to the first question--our military likes to keep quiet, but I suspect that majority of our forces are not spent on protecting oil fields but rather, attempting to secure other cities and holding down hotspots.the second question is easier. For exampleor
This site is claiming 3 million before the warnow for post war
2000
2.63
2.082001
2.61
2.022002
2.25
1.632003
1.55
1.002004
2.00
1.552005
1.80
1.40 UN projections and explanationsI would read the section about halfway through the article, titled "Deteriorating Oil Industry" and go from there. Of course, reading the whole thing would be better.As I said, if this war is truly about securing oil we've done a pisspoor job of it. And as much as Bush bungles things, I don't think even he could bungle securing oil fields this badly.

---

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.

You're missing the big picture, K. The "zone" means preparedness for war in the Middle East. A couple of miles hither or thither is not the issue. Nor is Iraqi output. The US there means the oil ain't going away which would be the case if it where otherwise. Lets not forget that one mans loss (Iraqs output) is another mans gain (everyone but Iraq). A bit of argy bargy the world can stand - but not the meltsdown of a ME gone madAre the troops acclimatised? Are they more familiar with how the ME mindset works in terms of achieving their own objectives?Have they experienced what it is to operate in the region technically? Sand plays havoc with equipment afterall..Have they laid links around, in terms of on the ground intelligence? Are they spreading those links out wide. How does one do this from Kentucky?Have the arms industries geared up to be prepared for demand (you bet your bottom dollar they have: they are in cutting edge business not relatively slow moving government)Has anyone with ideas of disturbance in the region been given cause to think twice?What is the set up time for all that is necessary to provide complete local cover for an oil installation anywhere in the region as of now this instant - given an instant call for it now, this instant? Is it far less than if Iraq II had never happened?Whatever the original intention of Iran, do you think they think different now with the US on their doorstep? Like has it any influence at all in their reckoning. Or are they just dumb Arabs? What about anyone else with a tendency to rattle sabres. Disuaded perhaps?Do you think that a change in the US goverment will change the reality from a US perspective? Or do you think that the think-tanks that provide up to the minute, best-estimate-of current-lay-of-the-land will be disbanded by the new administration. I pose the question in the knowledge that such think-tanks are not political institutions but are rather intellectual institutions made up of the best minds in the field who are bent on what is best for the US (and the world by necessary extension). They are not concerned with what is best for the short term US government. Governments in the US don't last that long. These guys are looking at long term careers.Given the worlds addiction to oil (and a world reliant on oil is a large proportion of the total: think the West, China and India and you have 50% of it all before you even get out of bed) how many are seriously going to complain? What is the real (as opposed to posturing oppostion?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I love your dodge--your move to the "big picture" that competely left behind your reason for us being there in the first place--to protect and ensure a supply of oil. You only make one comment at the end about the world not complaining about the security of oil. Focus on that damn issue, man. You brought it up, now you have to answer for it.The rest of your "military prep" issues are non-relevant to iraq. Afghanistan in mountanious and desert, and cold. Iran is quite mountainous with some desert. Afghanistan provides better training for that. Now if we were heading into Saudi Arabia, Iraq would provide a better training ground. But let me ask you this--what the hell are our war games for? If we actually have to fight a war to prepare for a war, they're pretty pointless, huh?Intelligence in a non-issue. You don't need to occupy a nation to lay down a spy-ring.Iran isn't thinking twice about pushing the nuclear issue--and if they would, it would be from an Isreali response, not from us. why? we're pretyy well tied down in Iraq--we're close, but we're a tiger trapped in a cage.Our arms' industires? hah! we really don't even have the capability to produce a massive army like in WWII. Are they geared up? I wouldn't say more so than they were well before the war.You want to tell me that the country that rebuilt europe after WWII in less than five years can't rebuild a small oil infrastructure?Com'on iano, put up or shut up on the oil issue. Don't distract us with your dodges.

---

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.

I addressed it in detail. You chose not to respond to that part. What do you suggest - kill off all the terrorists? For every terrorist you killed, a dozen more would be recruited. You would have to kill off all of the arabs. And, when done, the Europeans would hate us for doing that, so it would be necessary to kill of all of the Europeans. Have you really thought that one through? Yes, it is. But only because the incompetent bungling Bush still has two more years in office. If he had followed the advice coming from the state department, instead of that coming from the neocons, he could have made substantial gains quite quickly, using the good will that existed toward America just after 9/11. Keep in mind that Britain and U.S.A sent people on suicide missions against Hitler, during World War II.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Recent events have taught me not to engage in elaborate discussions regarding who said what. It is plain to me that you are ignoring what I have said and putting words into my posts. I will try this once more, very carefully. Read very carefully.I agree that the Taliban's rise to power was a result of US policy in Afghanistan. So was Hussein's in Iraq. Indeed one could even say so was Ayatollah Khomenei's in Iran. We've been screwing up in that region for decades.I agree that we should not be going in and dictating what sorts of govt's should be in that region. I also agree that Bush and Co have that sort of agenda.You keep trying to argue against me as if I hold those positions, I don't. Its a complete strawman. My position is based on what I think we should do given the facts on the ground now as well as the history of the region.AQ attacked us and so we needed to dismantle their operation in Afghanistan. In doing so we also needed to dismantle the Taliban. In my mind that was a worthwhile agenda anyway as the Taliban were not a legitimate gov't. They were a minority power who seized control by blasting their way into Kabul, and certainly did not control, much less speak for, the entire population of Afghanistan.We had, and hopefully still do have a chance, to protect moderate elements within Afghanistan from being disrupted by militants until they have the power to protect themselves. The current gov't wants our forces in, says it would enjoy more support, and many of the population do NOT want to see the Taliban return to power. That would mean decades more war and poverty.I find it unusual to suggest that stepping away from defending a moderate gov't, made up of the majority population who had been fighting the Taliban for years, is somehow empowering Afghanis to settle their own future. As far as I can tell that is simply repeating the same error we made last time. You can't leave a heavily armed and trained thug in a room with several relatively unarmed people and say, okay we're leaving, you guys decide who's boss.In Iraq I totally disagreed with our invasion. However I can't take it back now. The power vaccuum exists and if we are not careful it will result in many more bad things for the Iraqi people. It is much the same as Afghanistan was after the Soviets. In this case there are many different armed and trained thugs vying for power.I don't like how we have conducted ourselves in either nation, and I agree tactics and strategy need to be changed. But that does not change the fact that it will require boots staying on the ground in that region, most especially ones carrying weapons. I'm not sure how you expect food and medical delivery without protection, much less a gov't to remain stable without it.How we use are military can be polarizing. But our abandonment could equally be polarizing, and worse still for the people we leave totally unprotected.Personally I don't understand your argument that we don't have a responsibility to prevent casualties of Iraqis and Afghanis. The people are not our enemies. ??? That's a nice assertion. I totally disagree with most of the Demoracts at this point in time, and generally did throughout. I didn't agree with the Reps either. I am for a major shift in policy in the ME. That does not change the current security situation within Iraq and Afghanistan.What we must do now was in no way a justification for invading either nation. That Bush has tried to do so does not mean that I agree with his argument. My current position is based on the facts as they are.I was quite clear at the time I opposed the Iraq War, as it would likely lead to this kind of situation, and so mandate our further involvement. That means I did NOT think it was justified based on the need to topple Hussein and help change their gov't.Likewise I would not have argued for invading Afghanistan just to remove the Taliban. Toppling them was a bonus in a justified move to uproot AQ.

---

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

The picture is Middle East oil - not Iraqi oil. The US cannot go in and secure all the oil producing zones in the middle east on the basis potential threat. That would be ramping things up to disproportionate levels. But establishing a base in the middle east was do-able. Iraq is it. When the threats go then they can leave but the threat isn't going to go away. Of course damage could be repaired. But if the worlds economic system has a heart attack there is no guarantee that its heart can be started again and assuming it is started again, what is the level of brain damage that would be sustained by it? A significant blow to numerous installations all at the same time will take time to repair. The delivery time on complex equipment in my plant is 12-15 weeks from order. Suppose the same timescales with oil production equipment. 3-5 months. I can't see how even this would be done. Its a specialised industry and you haven't got teams of specialists who can simultaneously start out repairing multiple installations.I'd make sure that whatever method I was using to cause damage would result in fire (there is plenty of fuel available afterall). Fire cause tremendous damage. And before you even think about repair you have first to put the fire out! This is getting even easier to do. Starting fires in oil producing plants can't be that difficult. Remember 9/11. If the collapse of the WTC wasn't foreseen you can bet someone learnt something from it.And say the timing of this attack coincided with Iran turning off the oil tap as a means to extract world sanction against Israel for a strike against their nuclear industry. Iran turning off the tap alone would cause a shock to the delicate economic structure which yearns for oil stability in supply and price. If a terrorist was considering taking out oil installations then it would be best to wait until things had gotten a little bit ropey elsewhere. Let the world wobble a little in uncertainty. Then strike. Thats how I'd do it.You cannot you simply crank up capacity at other sources - people don't invest in expesive oil extraction equipment just to leave it lying around in case half the worlds oil supply (or whatever it is) disappears overnight. Capacity increases take time. In fact, given that this is a global threat then why not increase the span of attack to include oil production in other countries?And you can be sure that if starvation then the countries with the oil are going to ensure their own strategic needs are met: they will maintain themselves and anyone key to themselves first. Many countries will get a lot less than half normal supply.What happens to oil prices in such a scenario. And what happens to the price of all the products that are made from oil? They go up. And to add to that you have people worried about jobs and futures - the last thing they are going to be doing is buying more expensive products. When folk are uncertain they batten down the hatches. Uncertainly is what you try to sow - it adds untold amount to the size of the actual problem3-5 months with such an interruption to supply would be devastating to the worlds economy. Not a mortal wound perhaps, not even something that could not eventually be recovered from. But devestating all the same. Business that is totally oil dependant collapse if oil is interrupted: how can airlines stay in business if planes can't fly. And if once out of business how do they get back in business? How do you start the heart of a dead corpse? And how do you carry out all the essential business that is carried out by people flying? What happens to international tourism and the economies that rely on tourism.How does a car manufacturer produce cars when he has no plastic dashboards and why would he think of producing them when the last thing folk are going to be buying is carsMy mate has a company that makes plastic bags. He doesn't stockpile the raw material - he buys it on the basis of Just In Time. And all the way down the chain everyone produces things on a Just In Time basis - inventory sitting on the shelves costs money. How long can he stay in business when he has no product to sell? How long will he pay his employees to come in a do nothing? 3 months? And what happens to the banks who now have massive default on mortgage payments? What do realty companies do when no-one but no one is buying or selling houses. Do they keep their employees on the pay roll for three months?How do people get to work when they live 60 miles away. How do the companies who are missing employees stay in business when there is no one to do the work?It'd be a heart attack Kuresu.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Your posts are increasingly evasive/non-responsive.I agree that oil is important in the modern world. While I might disagree that it is as fragile a situation as you suggest, I can easily agree on that for sake of argument.The Israel-Iran nuclear issue did not exist as it does now, back before we invaded Iraq. But let's say it did, that does not directly impact oil supply. If it did I suppose our answer would be to not allow Israel to attack Iran. In any case lets say that issue existed as it does now and Israel would attack, and so disrupt oil. I still do not see how invading Iraq did anything for that situation.We could have just as easily run in forces and taken the fields. We'd clearly have invaded a nation based on securing interests, as well as have forces in the area. Heck we could then have a huge reserve of forces in the area not pinned down in cities trying to maintain order, as well as having to try and survive urban warfare environments. That is on top of not costing as much in money or lives. Are you, or your friend, unaware that Iran is not adjacent to Israel? Damascus is in Syria, not Iran, and it is unlikely they'll be driving through any nation quite so quickly to invade Iran. I might add your friend seems to have been proven wrong on their abilities, given what just happened in Lebanon.I mean unless you are suggesting US troops, by taking over Iraq are going to allow Israeli troops to cross Iraq for an invasion of Iran? Or become an invading force for Israel in Iran?Yeah, that won't effect oil supplies. I should note I wouldn't ask "why would Israel attacking Iran result in threat to oilfields?". I think it would. You have supplied no reason to suggest our invasion of Iraq decreased this risk. Uh... our invasion of Iraq INCREASED the risk of terrorist attacks on oil supplies.

---

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

Then let me try to deal with your post and see if anything I have said before needs repeating or elaboration Fair enough. It has existed from the moment Iran started building a nuclear power plant. This day was inevitable. Israel won't strike unless it has to - if there is another means they will take that. They know the world doesn't want Iran having nukes any more than they do. But if the world won't resolve it they willIsrael striking Iran wouldn't affect oil supply? The Arab world would go bananas. Israel cannot let Iran have nukes - its not a question of you allowing or disallowing. It is their existance at stake.Invading Iraq establishes a firm base in the Middle East. If the balloon went up then its state of emergency time. The military moves to protect Iraqi oilfields and threatened oil fields in other countries in the region. Iraq is a base - that's all. We're completely hooked on oil Holmes. Don't underestimate what addicts will do for a fix. I think you missed the point I was making. Which is why you might think I am being evasive. I was comparing Israeli (conventional) military power to others conventional military power in that region. I know where Damascus is and I also said Israel would not invade. The purpose of stating them being able to ride straight to Damascus was to underline their conventional might. Conventionally, the balance of power is completely on the Israeli side. The only way to balance it for Iran is to go nuclear. How so? If people are already bent on your destruction then a terrorist threat against oil exists whether you invade or not. I made the point much earlier about the effect of knocking 10 aircraft out of the sky over the ocean with soft-drink bottle explosives. And then repeating it 2 or 3 times around the world. You get the collapse of the air travel/manufacturing industry and much by way of knock on effect into the economy. 30 aircraft knocked down by a combination of soft-drinks bottles + 30 martyrs + ingenious thinkingThe ingenious thinking could not fail to look at oil - invasion or no. I imagine some smart people came to that conclusion after 9/11. "We are very vunerable so simple attack. Now where else are we vunerable?"Edited by iano, : No reason given.