Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan

Afghanistan wasn't important, and we thought we had won down there. So we hit up target number two--daddy's mistake.We should have never started the Iraq War until we were finished in afghanistan. There are, I believe, less than 30,000 troops there (NATO). We alone have more than 100,000, and I'm thinking it's closer to 200,000 (though I don't have exact figures at this moment). Imagine--had we thrwon our full might into Afghanistan, the country would have been able to be rebuilt. We never threw our full might into that war. I think it was Colin Powell who said something along the lines of winning wars with overwhelming forces, or something to that effect. Leave to Rumsfield to fuck it all up.Oh, and they won't see it as a cut n' run. why? well, we won that war. (that's what they think, at anyrate)

---

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.

Pray tell me, what work has been done on getting the Iaqi oil up and running?If we went in their for oil, do you really think we would let the amount of oil being produced fall?Wasn't that oil supposed to be used to help pay for the war?We didn't go there to liberate the people, I'll buy that. If anything, we went there to fix daddy's mistake.The only thing I can say--bring on the hydrogen economy, and now.

---

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.

bull. The Afghani war that the soviets fought was our Vietnam. We went into vietnam to stem the itde of communism, no matter who was running that country--in this case, a dictator.Why did the soviet union lose their war in afghanistan? They were attempting to break it's back and make it their own. THe afghanis didn't stand for that. When we threw out the Taliban, we had a golden oppurtunity to build up that country--we had the support of the populace. Instead, we moved our military to Iraq, and kep a token force in afghanistan. Where was the rebuilding?We forgot what the Marshall Plan can do. Marshall devised it as a strategy for getting western europe, and those in the east that wanted (or were allowed) to take up the deal, to prevent soviet hegemony in europe. we rebuilt the economy and infrastructure of that place. Why the hell didn't we do this in afhganistan when we had our chance? IF we had rebuilt, well, actually, built, their infrastructure and got them into a stable economy and government, we would have won. Instead, it was, okay, Taliban out, now time for Saddam Hussein. That's not how you fight a war against terrorism when the terrorist leaders can promise you stability--which is why the Taliban is experiencing a resurgence of power and influence.

---

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.

Just so you know, I'm not pushing to fix "daddy's mistake". All I'm saying is that over here across the pond, a lot of us have this theory about junior fixing his dad's "mistake". Now one to the rest.hmm. . . it's not in this post I'm replying to. anywho, you made the comment about it being no big deal if WMD's weren't found, because by that time we're already in. I disagree. It is a very, very big deal. You do not lie your way into a war. You do not go from "we're gettin' him for his WMDs to We're here to liberate the iraqis to who knows what else is next." You plain and simple do not lie to America to get america into a war--and if he is as good a christian as he claims to be, then he surely remembers the commandment that says that thou shall not bear false witness. You do not send 200,000 people to war on a lie or a whim of fancy. We are now stuck in Iraq because of a lie--not a very good image, especially for a country that supposedly takes the moral high road.As to the relevance of Afghanistan. You may not think it is relevant. It's not, really, not Geopolitically. However, once you walk in, youhave made it relevant. We went after the Afghani's gov't the Taliban for supporting Al-Queda. We kicked the Taliban out. If we didn't want them to come back (which we don't) then we should have finished the job there before starting a second war. We should have instituted a form of the marshall plan, where we build up their economy and raise their standards of living and give them a stable government--we had their backing to do this. Now we are losing that backing, and the terrorist supporting Taliban are moving back in, and getting support becuase they can offer what we have failed to--a stable life.It may not have been relevant at one point and time, but as soon as we put our foot in the door, it became relevant.

---

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.

Okay, So we need to secure Canada, Alaska, Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, Kuwait, Sadui Arabia, Indonesia, and every other country that has oil. Well, Canada and Alaska are done. Up next, Iraq and Kuwait (may as well get them, seeing as how they're on Iraq's border).That's such bull Iano and you know it. If the west was so concerned about the oil supply, then why haven't we all banded together (after all, even the french, germans, swedes, norwegians, danish, spanish, italians, et al are part of the west) to go on a massive oil crusade? You surely don't think that the west wants all the oil in the hands of the US?And one tiny nitpick. The balance of power is where both sides are relatively equal. What Isreal wants, and has for the moment, is an unbalance in their favor. And I'm not being literal with the term "balance". I'm using it the way the realists do--you only have a balance of power when the sides are equal (or close to). You have an unbalance when one side gets too powerful.

---

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 know, Holmes makes a good point. If this was all about the oil, then why invade whole countries? You need only conquer the oil rich areas of the country and secure those borders. You don't have to worry about civilian deaths, no green zone is necessary, no new government, just the land with the oil being fiercly protected. Where is this protection? Better yet, where is the exploitation of the oil lands we have control of in Iraq? (you know, Iraq is producing less crude oil than before we started this war. If it was all about securing the oil for the benefit of our economy, then we should at least try to rebuild it. For being a fundamentalist christian, you sure are a funny kind of radicalist)

---

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 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.

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.

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.

Another dodge--you specifically claimed that the US went into Iraq to secure the oil. After I posted the figures showing a steady decline in iraqi oil production you changed tact--saying that we went into Iraq as preparation for our troops--as a war game, but this time for real. You've now dodged it again--moving the picture to, no, not just Iraqi oil, but ME oil.And you know what, I was asking if this was about oil, why haven't we secured the others--which you ignored. Now you are claiming it is about securing ME oil. which is still bull.You have ignored the steadily declinging Iraq oil production--even if it takes 3-5 months to get the equipment there, just how long has it been since we took out saddam? A little over three years--and you're telling me that in three years we can't even manage to get the oil production to increase? Even if it ain't back up at pre-war production, if we were truly there to secure oil for ouselves and the rest of the west, the least we can manage is to increase the production, or better yet, not let it fall--Iraq is not about to run out of oil, you know.We rebuilt Europe in a matter of years--factories and all with just our money. Why not here, for something that is nowhere near as massive an undertaking as the marshall plan was?As to the oil markets--ever hear of China and India? You've got people there chomping at the bit to live our lifestyle--including oil consumption. They want oil, and they want it badly. So there is a secure market over there--and if the figures are right about how much oil Iraq has--we should go in and increase the oil production quickly. why? High gas prices slow down our economy--they force the rising costs of other goods, not to mention the less gas the individual consumer buys (no long trips, etc).And if this was truly about securing oil, why the hell are our troops protecting Bagdahd? Or putting out hotspots elsewhere in Iraq. If we just wanted oil, we wouldn't be constrained by the need to rebuild Iraq--hell, we could have left Saddam in power, and just taken over his oil fields. you shock it Iano, you shock the hell out of it, and you keep on shocking it. Unless you've killed the brain completely, that is.You can prevent this if you ramp up Iraqi oil production--that way, if some nut job decides, okay, all oil wells go down--we've still got oil. Never mind the strategic oil reserves we have, which would help us until we knock out the country that decided to close down the oil wells and we get those back up and running.

---

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.

One tiny correction with your first point--I've got post number 3 in this thread, before your first one in this thread. Other than that, I concede on this specific dodge.The marshall plan was launched as a counter to the USSR--we feared that unless Europe got back up and running, the USSR would be poised to take it all. We even offered aid to the eastern countries controlled by russia--which were forced to refuse that aid by russia. There is about 60 years separating the marshall plan and the iraqi war. where is the difference? we are trying to get them to have a stable government and economy to help them survive without us. A new marshall plan could work wonders. THe only real big difference I can think of is climate, and possibly the populace's opinion of us. But then, money speaks. What if we poured 500 billion dollars into the Iraqi infrastructure instead of on other things?Politics won't disallow such a thing--I seem to remember how europe didn't really back us on the war--and yet bush still went in, virtually alone. He doesn't really give a flip about what the world thinks of us, just that we get to do what we want and others do what we want them to do. we've been there for more than three . . .fucking . . .years. I don't buy it for a moment that we cannot have increased Iraqi oil production in that time if we actually went in there for the oil.As to the final point you make--we're all addicted. You made hte comment about how people aren't going to invest in something that won't exist tomorrow. Well, jee, there's a huge fucking market in india and china--even if the US switches to a hydrogen economy, will the whole world? I don't think so. And they're already addicted--otherwise the oil prices could conceivably go back down to a dollar a gallon (over here, that is). That price range is long gone, not just due to us being ripped off, but by the existence of a very soon to come and coming huge ass market.This war is not about oil, plain and simple. It is about the US going mad with bush at the helm just dying to fix his dad's mistake--the so-called mistake, at any rate. If it was about oil, then we've been using the wrong damn strategy the whole time.

---

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'd love to. Just not at this juncture. (I've got a speech due in a few hours for my writing class). I'm going to also be doing a lot, I mean a lot, of research. and a new thread--we've gotten way off topic here about the whole cut n' run deal. Perhaps even a GD is in store, and we can even have the peanut gallery if you'd like. I'd like to say I can have it ready in a week. I'll try.(note--this is not the sound of cuttin' and runnin'--it's a strategic retreat for a regrouping at a better time and place to win and some unspecified later date )

---

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.

don't you remember how "confused" and "lost" winston was when he questioned the policies of O'Brien?that's obviously what Tal means--you are lost if you don't agree, mind in lockstep, with the government. afterall, the gov't does know the directions to the closest disaster, right?I find it funny how this man, who swore to "protect the constitution" would willingly see it torn to shreds by his commander in chief's abuses of it. go figure.

---

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.

almost true. In the words of Clausewitz, war is but an extension of diplomacy. Pray tell me, did diplomacy fail in WWII? Or, go further back, did it fail in the case of the three german wars of unification in the 1870s? Did it fail in the case of the Napoleonic Wars? Did it fail in the case of the thirty years war? Out of order, did it fail in the American revolution?In all of these cases, war is an extension of specific foreign policies, and as such, an extension of diplomacy. War is a very handy diplomatic tool--if you can't coerce someone peacefully, hold a gun to their head.just a tiny nitpick.

---

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.

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.