Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan

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

Too bad because I think if we could just apply a suitable noise filter this could be an interesting and important discussion.The invasion of Afghanistan was justified based on the claim that the Taliban were sheltering AQ and providing them with a base of operations.While it may well be true that the Taliban did provide a base of operations to AQ, the idea of invasion as a recourse falls apart on several points.First, a modern terrorist organization is not directly tied to some specific piece of land. You cannot occupy some point in space and by virtue of that occupation eliminate the terrorists.Terrorist exist on the same infrastructure base as their targets. To attack their infrastructure is to attack your own infrastructure.Afghanistan was NOT the infrastructure of the terrorists. They needed advanced communications and transportation, ubiquitous and anonymous transportation, advanced technology, advanced education facilities and an extensive and pervasive financial system.None of those factors were availble in Afghanistan except through portable units that connected the people to the infrastructure of the west.Invading Afghanistan was the first really stupid step in this fiasco. It accomplished nothing except waste resources. The terrorists simply moved on. Afterall, most of their planning, training, supply and financial infrastructure were not in Afghanistan but in Rome and Madrid and Berlin and Hollywood Park Florida and New York and Manila and Paris and London and Bonn and Rio and Toronto.Another claim has been that invading Iraq was to secure the oil supply. That also seems very weak and to accept that premise places the US and Great Britain in the same moral position as Imperial Japan. It is a claim that because we need some resource and have the technological capability to take the resource, we have the obligation and right to do so. Such an argument is without any moral redemption, it is far more destructive to the Western Political and Social system than any terrorist threat. It is disgusting and reprehensible.Edited by jar, : change subtitle

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would use that term, but in relation to the stated goal of eliminating the AQ threat. The key people we supposedly went there to get simply left. There was no real infrastructure base in Afghanistan, so that too remained unchanged.The rest, the claim that somehow we are securing a supply of some needed resource is simply absurd and totally immoral. What makes it even worse is the shere stupidity of the argument. In the time we supposedly have been acting to secure the supply of oil we have seen the price climb steadily.However, it is stil lower than the inflation adjusted prices of 1980-1982.You can see the historical oil prices here.Those justifications of our invasion of Iraq as an oil supply issue are no different than the Imperial Japanese justifications for their invasions of China, Korea and South-East Asia looking for raw materials or Nazi Germanys invasions of its neighbors for more land, coal and oil.It is a disgusting and reprehensible position.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not sure we are all that far apart.AbE: The stated goal and reason though for invading Afghanistan was the capture on Bin Ladin and the other AQ members.
End of insertI question, and questioned at the time whether conventional military responses were reasonable or even feasable as a way of getting to those AQ assets in Afghanistan.Fighting terrorism is a new paradigm. It is not the same old Nation State scenario, and closer to crime fighting in requirements. It is far more like fighting the Mafia in the US or Italy than classic military operations.Unfortunately, in Afghanistan many of the advantages technology might provide were negated by the insular character of the countryside. We were the proverbial bull in the china shop, and could do little that was not immediately communicated to the terrorists. Agreed. But not sure how invading the country again can be seen as constructive. Sure. I agree. Piss poor planning and execution.BUT...to really be effective the terrorists needed to be in the developed countries. As long as they were sitting in camps in Afghanistan they were little threat. What was or could be accomplished by pursuing them incountry?Edited by jar, : add part on stated goal

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And how is a conventional military operations with all of the incumbent baggage such as newsmen the only option for that?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, looks like I am once again making a fool of myself.Edited by jar, : retract really dumb statement.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

One possible reason it was "in the plans" might be the following:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It was more than that. The quote supplied specifically talked about air or missle strikes against specified sites. Here is the quote once again: There is absolutely nothing in there that even remotely implies that invasion is called for. The fact that "take necessary actions" was then qualified by adding "(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites)" shows that invasion was not included.The question is though, "Where do we go from here?"We are in Iraq and Afghanistan.How do we get out without it becoming even worse than it is?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I do not think you owe ME anything.I do though believe that the reading public deserves to know the facts about things such as how the Grand Canyon was formed. I also believe that is true of every situation, including why your son and your relatives are in danger.I would also be interested to learn why you think I have acted to increase the risk to them. I am not at all sure that this is the thread to explore that issue but I am more than willing to discuss it either here or in some other venue.As to what I think the proper resonse should be in the GC thread, IMHO it would be to provide what knowledge or expertise you have. How could I think anything else?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion