Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan

Well, then you will accept nothing at all - for you are not privy to US government top-table rational. There is a summary of postion above addressed to Kuresu. We can both speculate as to timing for invading Iraq. I lay a case for the timing above for you. Dismantle it if it pleases you. I sure lots of people with access to intelligence knew of the possibilities. But Joe Public did not. 9/11 enabled the US to do something which was hitherto (geopolitically) impossible. As it was, the world gave in with hardly a whimper. Osama shot his wad a little early with such drama. Iraq with Saddam was a perfect entry point. A case could be made for invading Iraq. Not so Iran. Sure, folk might not like their views but you couldn't really stand up and say they cannot have nuclear weapons and demand inspectors be sent in. They have as much a right as anyone to develop nuclear weapopn. Not so Saddam. Saddam had form. The world would have no problem with his neck in the noose. He was an ideal patsy - ripe for the plucking.Invading Iraq doesn't strenghtn Irans position in any consequential way. Are they going to invade Israel. Or take on the US. No. In what way is their position strengthened bar for hollow sabre rattling?As for the terrorists being strengthed. Well it so happens that they were strong enough already to cause serious damage. Osama should have concentrated on (less spectacular) oil terminals first - not grandstanding announcements of intent. But the threat on oil hasn't diminished. I explained how easy it would be and gave a link to the effects of just one terminal being attacked. Dismantle the threat if you desire to do so. All that matters is whats acceptable to the world. Saddam, as I said above, was ideal. Made for it.Why not Saudi or Kuwait? Geopolitically unacceptable. What made the Cuban missile crisis unacceptable. The intent was obvious is what. There was no other motive than improving first strike capability on show. Iraq achieves all I say of it whilst winning at the table of geopolitical reality. Lets not forget that Russian and China have hands to play. They just got trumped by the US Were there no need to take account of the political game then Saudi or Kuwait would be ideal. But this is not the case and so a price must be paid. I don't see Iraq as a poor base other than that. Your in the middle of the middle east. How closer do you want to be?And lets not forget secondary objectives in Iraq. Yes the country needed to be rid of Saddam and rebuilding does need to occur. Only secondary but worthwhile in itself What 9/11 and the attempt on 10 planes should have thought us is that the attack will be clever and subtle. Not some attempt to ram the gates of an oil refinery with a car packed with explosives (as per my BBC link) That kind of attack could be repelled all day long. The ability for a stealth approach already exists. Did you read the essential elements:a) An expert who knows where best to place a bomb/incendiary device in order to start a nigh on un-put-out-able fireb) getting terrorists jobs in oil installationsAdding more anger to it does could not make it anymore simple. So adding to it should not be a prime concern. Responding to it must be. I'm not saying Iraq is perfect. Its not. But given main objectives it is the best of the options - given the critical objectives. You must keep the critical objectives in mind. And I don't think you are. A serious disruption of Middle East oil means Meltdown. You shouldn't expect to have it ALL your own way Nobody is concerned with Iraq having been invaded anymore. They are concerned with the consequences. Quite a different thing. And like I say (at the risk of sounding like the death and destruction means nothing to me: it does) - you do not make an omelette without breaking eggs.The effect on the world economy from Iraqi oil production reduction hasn't inhibited economic growth. The world is doing fine - operating within the healthy zone of economic growth. I have addressed possible gains for terrorists. It is not a central issue: the ball was already in play. War had already been declared. I mean that whatever genius figured out the way to play it made sure that those who would tend to wring their hands wouldn't have the option of retreating. Saddam gone means bridges back are burnt. Not being able to run away means one might focus on the fightEdited by iano, : No reason given.

glitchEdited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm going to repeat what I said in my previous post because the points still stand up as well against this latest "summary" as any of your previous posts.Assuming that stability of oil is our main concern, that terrorists present a challenge to it, as well as a potential war between Israel and Iran...1) Why do we need a military base? Simple terrorist actions would not be stopped by military forces, and a war between Israel and Iran could be aided from carriers.2) Assuming we need a base, why not Afghanistan? That is where the largest organization of terrorists we are fighting are at, and provides the same position against Iran. Indeed it would be smarter in that in any Israel-Iran conflict we could open up a second front.3) Assuming we need a base, and not Afghanistan, why not the oilfields of Iraq? It would secure an oil source and provide the same jumping off point you require. The idea that this would be difficult politically is bogus as one could have used the same excuse we gave for invading Iraq in the first place, and then just not take the whole country. Besides if everyone needs oil, why wouldn't they accept internationalizing those fields by removing it from Hussein's hands, and increasing protection against terrorist attacks?4) Assuming we need a base, and not Afghanistan, and not the oilfields of Iraq, why not use Kuwait or SA? You appeared to dismiss this as sabre-rattling, but that makes no sense. If we have troops there for protection then they will provide protection, right?5) Assuming we need a base, and not Afghanistan, and not the oilfields of Iraq, and not Kuwait or SA, why not Iran? That would solve the Iran-Israel issue permanently as well as secure oil fields, and on top of it all we could have used the exact same pretext we used for Iraq with one exception... it would have been closer to reality. People questioned at the time why we were invading Iraq on the criteria listed, given Iran fulfilled them as well and with less question.Your position is a series of assertions which make little sense when placed against the facts on the ground, and against plausible alternatives.On more thing, you argue that we need a base. A base is not having units scattered all over a nation, exposed to urban warfare, and having to fulfill many other duties. That pins them down and prevents them from quick response to any of the threats you listed.

---

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

I have replied to your post to Kuresu in my previous post. I will deal with outlying problems here. What difference does that make regarding solutions? Besides this is definitely changing your position. Earlier you were suggesting that it woke up intelligent people who began to ask questions. When I began pointing out it shouldn't have you now move it to the public as a whole. This is purely assertion on your part. If development and use of WMDs was imminent then why wouldn't we have been able to make a case? Who would have tried to stop us? How?As it stands most of the world was against invading Iraq, and they did nothing. Why would Iran be any different? And that saves us the problem of having to invade Iran, if the Iraq gambit failed. ??? Uh, Iraq was the check on Iran's power. That's why we supported Hussein? They no longer have an enemy with any military capability, and in fact are able to infiltrate and effect Iraq. They don't have to invade Israel, all they have to do is disrupt oil right? That was YOUR POINT and you seem to have already forgotten it.They are in the same position to disrupt oil in their own nation and NOW act to disrupt oil in Iraq like they never were before. Assertions, nothing but pure assertions. Why couldn't we set up a base there? If you don't remember, WE DID! We did it twice. Reality undercuts your assertions. Really? You see no problem with a "base" with a perimeter the size of a nation, and just as porous, with hostile civilian elements scattered throughout exposing your units to constant fire, as well as having to expend manpower on caring for nonhostile civilians within the same area? Yes, I read how easy it is to sabotage. That only supports my point and you refuse to deal with it. If it is that easy, then what difference does it make if our military has a base in the region? That is irrelevant when discussing why Iraq was invaded. What purpose. I am more concerned with consequences which is why I am for keeping troops in there. That's why I'm concerned about Afghanistan as well. Remember the topic? So in other words, contrary to your original claim, disruptions in oil production really don't mean much. Terrorist attacks would not reduce production to the levels we've already seen in Iraq. Tomato tomahto, genius moron. The above makes no sense other than apparently you feel that whoever came up with the plan you think is being enacted is a genius. I was focused on the fight without Hussein. Your suggested plan is ridiculous.

---

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

There will be no war between Israel and Iran. At least not one the Iranians can win. Israel has nukes. Iran can never win any war with Israel unless Israel chose to lose it. And Israel would be expressing perfect military strategy in keeping things that way.The base is intent only on protecting oil should that become necessary. Israel can defend herself without the US lifting a finger.{AbE} As for preventing a terrorist attack? No, you cannot for sure prevent on. But if one is launched you can shut down the possibility of widespread attack. Grounding all planes and taking to the air in F16's on 9/11 is the parallel here. Once an attack comes you clamp down so as to stabilise things. Its the only thing you can do: react to unaccounced attack. And once having clamped down (assuming the attack is not totally devastating (in which case its all for nought) it'l be a case of "Move along now stock market, there is nothing to see here - the Calvary have arrived".It just occurs to me: its the stock market that is being protected in reality. It just happens that the stock markets lives on oil. Where it to live on something else then it is that which would be protected You don't fight this kind of terrorism in Afghanistan. The plotting could be taking place in Ireland for all we know. The world is global Holmes. Which, to refer to topic, is as good a reason to forget Afghanistan as any. Chasing after ghosts isn't profitable. The nature of the beast is wait (intelligently) and respond. We are on the back foot in that respect. It can't be helpedAs for Afghanistan as a base. Look at a map. Some things spring to minda) Afghanistan is land locked (I suppose Iraq is too but there is only a sliver of thankful Kuwait between it and the sea)b) Iraq is positioned in the centre of gravity of oil-land. Afghanisthan is in the middle of nowherec) Iraq divides Iran from Israel, Saudi, Kuwait. Afghanistan doesn'td) Afghanistan borders Russia territory: there is no point in rubbing their noses in it if you are trying to play cards at the geopolitical table. Besides, Russia has built Irans nuclear station. That Russia/Iran geographical front is established. I'm sure the Iranian military is Russian backed. And you want to sit in the middle of it rather than sit with friendly Saudi/Kuwait/Israel/ Europe at your back. As it is it seems very East meets Weste)Have a look at another neighbour bordering Afghanistan: China. One must wonder what the hell the US was doing in that territory in the first place! 9/11 allowed for some short term leeway perhaps but lets get real - Russia and China on your immediate borders - and that a long way from home...I would suggest that simple geography resolves the US withdrawing from Afghanistan... and that Osama didn't pick his base there by accident. Head for the hills and wait it out - very simple when you think of it.f) To get from Afghanistan to the oil fields means driving your vehicles through Iran. From Iraq its a drive through far more friendly territory.I'm sure a strategist could add much more... Could you flesh out the bogus element a little The troops aren't their for oil field protection. They are their to free the Iraqi people from the oppression of Saddam (once the WMD angle got long forgotten). Don't you watch CNN? Are you nuts? Folk might not like Iran but their form is not in the same league as Saddam. Ask the average American what the name of the president of Iran is if you do not believe me. Saddam was a fig leaf - what your suggesting is walking in bollox naked... Hmmm. So you say. You just wait until some threat or other presses the red button and watch. No more "hearts and minds". It is down to business. You might not be thankful that response can be rapid - the stock market will be however. And on the day, if it ever happens (Americas reaction offsetting that possibility) you will watch it all on tv. Then you will go out and fill your car on the forecourt. If and when you do so, remember this: you heard it here first.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Actually it was, due to the short-sightedness of the administration.They were going to welcome us with flowers, remember? The oil was going to pay for the reconstruction, remember?They didn't plan beyond getting to Bagdad.

---

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.

It did not start with 9/11 and rounding up every single terrorist in the world today would not stop it.It is a response behavior. Part of what it responds to is actions like invading Iraq for no valid reason and indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians. Will Media Finally Count the Dead in Iraq? :

quote:

---

From the beginning, the U.S. military refused to count -- and the American media rarely probed -- civilian casualties as the result of our invasion of Iraq in 2003. Now a new study places the number at 600,000, more or less. Why is the AP playing up the view that the report is nothing but "politics"?

​

The Johns Hopkins count, based on door-to-door surveys in 18 provinces (most of them not beset by daily violence) could be lower, the study suggests -- but the bottom line is still 426,000 and the high end soars to nearly 800,000. The last guess coming from President Bush was 30,000.

​

Today, asked about this at a press conference, Bush declined to amend his 30,000 figure, called the new survey not "credible," and, seriously, added: "I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to ” you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate."

---

30,000 is 10x's the number of people that were killed in 9/11 -- and this is the "terrorism" inflicted on Iraq people for what? Having Saddam in charge?In fact we have reached the point where the number of americans killed in Iraq equals the number of americans killed in 9/11 -- without finding, capturing, killing or even diminshing the perps of 9/11. News article suppressed?
google cached version
The same terrorists btw tried to blow the towers up while Clinton was president, and attacked US embassies before that ...9/11 was not new, did not "change the world" -- there has been more growth in terrorism after Iraq than after 9/11.The invasion of Iraq has changed the world, and NOT in a way that benefits the free world in general or america in specific.The Iraq invasion has done more damage to America than the 9/11 attack did.What's that old saying? Fools rush in where angels fear to tread?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : tpoy

---

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.

My OP was asking how CnR is not appled to Afghanistan when the same behavior in Iraq is labelled such. Your reply appears to be that it is because Afghanistan is unimportant compared to Iraq.When pressed on this point you explain Iraq is truly important because despite whatever our public statements have been, our true intent from the beginning has been to secure a base in Iraq to protect oil reserves.When pressed on this point you argue that it is some super genius plot unknown to anyone and successfully executed under the elaborate smoke screen of invading Iraq for wmds, and then freeing the Iraqi people.Now we can forget the fact that you are not privy to secrets of the whitehouse and so are merely asserting this as a possibility. We can even forget the fact that this undercuts the ability of reps to defend themselves regarding CnR in Afghanistan... unless they are going public with the sham nature of Iraq at this point?What I am not going to forget is that this alleged plot is ludicrous.Both reasons for needing troops in the region (potential threats from terrorists and an Iran-Israel conflict) don't seem to require our forces at all. At least not on the level of a base the size of Iraq.Heck you just shifted position again to say that Israel won't need our help (because they have nukes) and our troops will JUST be used to secure oilfields. I could have sworn that earlier our troops were to be a pressure on Iran. In any case let me point out that if Israel would not be able to "defeat" Iran. Knock out its air/nuclear military capabilities yes, invade Iran, no. And if they did use nukes there'd be no oilfields for us to defend.But assuming there is a need for troops, you have not explained why we cannot use carriers in the region, as well as airlifts fo further support, to accomplish the task and act as bases. You didn't address that at all.Neither did you adequately address why Afghanistan could not have been used as the nation size "base" we need. You start by claiming... Uh, that's where one of the largest global terrorist networks exist and if you remember right succeeded in hitting mainland US by reaching out from that nation. We are there because we are responding to a major terrorist incident. They still exist there, and if we go away now they can reconstitute themselves. On the flipside there were no major terror orgs of sufficient danger to US interests within Iraq... especially to oil, as that was Hussein's lifeblood and he was interested in protecting it against the same attacks as you.On your other points. No matter all of your reasons for Aghanistan being suitable, the fact is we did invade that nation and have troops there. There are lots of troops there and will be for some time. If we are faking it in Iraq we certainly could have faked it easier in Afghanistan.The idea that it is landlocked means nothing as so is Iraq. It is doubtful that Kuwait is going to join some alliance with Israel to attack Iran. That is no more so than Pakistan.As far as being centrally located all I can say is ??? What type of timeframe are we looking at? We have global reach, and we certainly would have regional reach from Afghanistan.The idea that China could invade through the minor corridor/border of Afghanistan is a bit stretched. And as far as Russia goes, it borders Iran anyway, so if that is where we fight and they ally with Russia, we still get attacked. And I might add that if we are not holding Afghanistan and China/Russia decide to side with Iran then they can both use Afghanistan as a base of operations. Our being closer to Israel is not going to help.Leaving those points aside, you have still not addressed why we could not have simply secured Iraqi oilfields as the base. Other than that it would be less geopolitically acceptable than the invasion of Iraq, which of course was NOT acceptable, and we did it anyway.And what about simply using Kuwait or SA. Centrally located, not landlocked, low cost in money and lives. You have given no reason they could not be used, except to mention the term "sabre-rattling", and when I questioned that claim you said that they are there to free Iraqis (meaning that is their cover story) which does not answer my question. Why would positioning troops in Kuwait or SA be unfeasible? What is the geopolitical issue that would have prevented us from doing that, especially as that is exactly what we did? I could say the exact same thing. Your position is not proven by us going to defend oilfields if a threat pops up against them. That is what we'd be doing no matter what our original intention.All you have done is create a new "you don't know what they know and have planned" ad hoc justification for Iraq. I have no more reason to believe it is true than any of the others, and if true only indicates to me that these people are absolutely clueless.As it is you can't even seem to keep straight what would destabilize oil and so world economies. You mention small terrorist capabilities to hit specific wells. But when shown actual decreases on a large scale within one nation you say national output is of no concern. Well what is it? Israel would only effect Iran's output and it is rather unreasonable to believe terrorists could in one coordinated attack hit the equivalent of several nation's 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)

Iano states: Please feel free to show us the common border between Russia and Afghanistan on this map:

holmes writes: Please see map on previous post.The interesting question will be who retracts first, or indeed who will try to argue against geographic fact.

"Russia territory" is not the same as Russian territory. Read it as Russia neck of the woods, Russia sphere of influence, Russia part of the world. And Chinese part of the world.Nice map. It highlights in no uncertain terms whey one could not locate ones base in Afghanistan. You don't go moving your armies into your less-than-friendly neighbours back yard.Iraq on the other hand is at the frontier of the east/west divide. European/US focused Turkey, Israel, Saudi, Kuwait all around you with Europe itself behind those.

Not a retraction, but a clarification.I didn't want to get further off course, and so ran with what I assumed Iano was talking about and that is the Soviet Union's previous borders. I think it is safe to assume for sake of argument that Russia continues to enjoy enough power and flexibility to reach across those previous member nations.Assuming he meant that, then Russia borders Afghanistan and Iran just the same.If we want to talk about modern Russia using only its immediate borders, then I would point out that Russia and Iran share a joint border on the Caspian. That body of water grants Russia clear military access to Iran by air and sea (and so land).Your point is noted however. I suppose we should be more accurate.

---

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

Iano states: Especially with all that US military presence.CNN.com In-Depth SpecialsAll you have done is prove the point you can't admit you are wrong.

holmes states: You seem to have trouble admitting when you are wrong as well, but appear to have conceded the point in your own way.Maybe the best response is "I made a mistake."Edited by anglagard, : misspelled admitting, unlike some others, am not claiming personal inerrency

It does no such thing.1) Why is Russia less than friendly? They accepted our forces into Afghanistan and their present occupation.2) If they are on friendly terms with Iran then their sphere of influence cuts through Iran just the same which means Iraq and Afganistan both border their sphere of influence.3) If the issue is an Israeli-Iranian conflict, if they are pals with Russia then Russia clearly has the ability to aid Iran and effect our maneuvers from either Iraq or Afghanistan. ??? Europe isn't close. Turkey is not necessarily allied to us, and indeed waffled on overflight during our Iraq invasion. SA and Kuwait are not friends with Israel and are unlikely to aid us in any issue between Israel-Iran.Israel does not border Iraq, nor is it capable of aiding us (particularly against Russian pressure) beyond limited projected air power... unless it is going to use nukes, of which I am not sure what the ranges they have, and would be of no value to our troops stationed in that area.I could just as easily point out that Afghanistan enjoys proximity to Pakistan and India which both act as our allies, and could put up greater resistance against Russian interference.

---

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