"Iraq Hasn't Even Begun"

[Bill]

A pretty good article, which about sums it up.

The one thing it doesn't mention, which proves that it's basically another puff piece for the corporate media, despite it's accuracy in some topics, is the oil.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-garton19jul19,0,6963317.story

"... For the United States, the world is now, as a result of the Iraq war, a more dangerous place. At the end of 2002, what is sometimes tagged "Al Qaeda Central" in Afghanistan had been virtually destroyed, and there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. In 2007, there is an Al Qaeda in Iraq, parts of the old Al Qaeda are creeping back into Afghanistan and there are Al Qaeda emulators spawning elsewhere, notably in Europe.

Osama bin Laden's plan was to get the U.S. to overreact and overreach itself. With the invasion of Iraq, Bush fell slap-bang into that trap. The U.S. government's own latest National Intelligence Estimate, released this week, suggests that Al Qaeda in Iraq is now among the most significant threats to the security of the American homeland.

The U.S. has probably not yet fully woken up to the appalling fact that, after a long period in which the first motto of its military was "no more Vietnams," it faces another Vietnam. There are many important differences, but the basic result is similar: The mightiest military in the world fails to achieve its strategic goals and is, in the end, politically defeated by an economically and technologically inferior adversary.

Even if there are no scenes of helicopters evacuating Americans from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, there will surely be some totemic photographic image of national humiliation as the U.S. struggles to extract its troops.

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have done terrible damage to the U.S. reputation for being humane; this defeat will convince more people around the world that it is not even that powerful. And Bin Laden, still alive, will claim another victory over the death-fearing weaklings of the West.

In history, the most important consequences are often the unintended ones. We do not yet know the longer-term unintended consequences of Iraq. Maybe there is a silver lining hidden somewhere in this cloud. But as far as the human eye can see, the likely consequences of Iraq range from the bad to the catastrophic.

Looking back over a quarter of a century of chronicling current affairs, I cannot recall a more comprehensive and avoidable man-made disaster."

[Southern Man]

.....

Osama bin Laden's plan was to get the U.S. to overreact and overreach itself. .......

Wow. How did the LA times know bin Laden's plan. Did they interview him?

[Bill]

I guess they took the easy way out and just listened to the hundreds of tapes and videos.

Lazy bastards!

[Southern Man]

Do these tapes and videos detail bin Laden's plan?

[Bill]

Since I can't freekin translate arabic, as far as I know they are all just recipes for goat's butthole stew.

But, if you trust the people who do know such things, like those commies at 60 minutes, supposedly they do.

Page after page, hour after hour, explaining his plans, and telling his followers how to carry them out.

There's a whole freekin section of the internets devoted to explaining it all. So I hear. Again, can't say, because I can't read freekin arabic.

[Southern Man]

So you assert that the LA times can translate arabic while the US military cannot. Is that your position?

[Bill]

Non sequitor, straw man, category error, false choice. 0 out of ten.

How the fuck would I know if the people at the LA times can read arabic?

And what does the ability of milint to read arabic have to do with any of this?

[Southern Man]

Non sequitor, straw man, category error, false choice. 0 out of ten.

How the fuck would I know if the people at the LA times can read arabic?

And what does the ability of milint to read arabic have to do with any of this?


Wow. That didn't take long for you to shoot yourself in the foot. You brought up the langauge issue in response to my question 'how did the LA times know'? :D

[Bill]

Now you're just shuckin and jivin. Make a point.

[Southern Man]

Now you're just shuckin and jivin. Make a point. I made my point in post 2. You stated S&J in post 3.

[Linkster]

I would say they probably went to one of the English speaking sites that carries all of Ladens writings and speeches already translated - pretty easily found - that detail exactly what his plans were and still are for the future.

And I disagree that Bush fell into the trap - he was already in it when he stepped into the WH - the plan has been out there since the 80s - the only difference was he didnt take daddys advice and stay the heck out of it

Of course the fact that the news writer didnt research the article very well (since they think that Al Qaeda has been around forever) shows that they just skimmed the surface - anyone knowledgable of history knows that this group didnt really exist until it was given a name by the CIA to blame a few events on - and has been built to what it is today primarily on news hype - most of what it was in the past was just rag-tag groups of different sects - the media lumped them all together for "blames sake"

[Southern Man]

That seems reasonable.

However how does 9/11 efect Bush's decision to take action. Would you expect him just to lob some cruise missiles at empty tents and aspirin factories?

[Linkster]

It basically "gave" him a reason - at least based on books written by his advisers that have since quit and written accounts of it.

Of course if you are of the crowd that Cheney was the instigator of 911 with help from outsiders from the old Bush group for their own monetary reasons than it kinda fits a little better - he was just caught off guard and has been coached on what to do ever since - inner circles are still talking about the anthrax to a select few congressmen and news reporters which seems to be picking up pace as theyve been finding some new evidence and there are some releases planned in the mainstream news soon - will have to wait and see on that part of it :)

[Southern Man]

I'm not big on conspiracy theories (with the exception of LBJ doing in JFK) so in this case I'll go on face value of the evidence available.

Bush 43 had a bone to pick with Saddam as the latter tried to assasinate Bush 41. Saddam's big mistake, however, was suporting terror groups in the ME, and specifically, Al Queada and bin Laden before and after 9-11. That coupled with snubbing his nose at the GW1 treaty that saved Saddams ass was enough in my mind to go into Iraq.

[Independent Harry]

I'm not big on conspiracy theories (with the exception of LBJ doing in JFK) so in this case I'll go on face value of the evidence available.

Bush 43 had a bone to pick with Saddam as the latter tried to assasinate Bush 41. Saddam's big mistake, however, was suporting terror groups in the ME, and specifically, Al Queada and bin Laden before and after 9-11. That coupled with snubbing his nose at the GW1 treaty that saved Saddams ass was enough in my mind to go into Iraq.

are you serious, Sadaam hated extremist groups. He didn't allow them in his country. He had enough problems keeping the Sunnis Kurds and Shiites from ripping each other's throats out. He didn't need al quaeda in there stirring up trouble. It just goes to show you how much the average american knows about what is really happening in the ME.

[Southern Man]

are you serious, Sadaam hated extremist groups. He didn't allow them in his country. He had enough problems keeping the Sunnis Kurds and Shiites from ripping each other's throats out. He didn't need al quaeda in there stirring up trouble. It just goes to show you how much the average american knows about what is really happening in the ME.
The facts speak for themselves on the Saddam-binLaden connection. http://www.milnet.com/geo-pol/iraq-terror.html

[Linkster]

Unfortunately Harry is correct in this one - Saddam would have killed Bin Laden on the spot if he had ever run across him - especially after Bin Laden played CIA spy for the US for a while.

Your source is unfortunately propaganda talking points and does not reflect real life - its nice talking points but totally untrue

I suppose you believe the one about Saddam killing his own citizens with chemicals too? If you need some real history links I can point you at them - but the main point here would be that Saddam hated the ME terrorist groups and had them killed or jailed regularly.

I also would love to see a copy of that treaty that Saddam "made" with GB1

Finally - if Bush wanted to get back at someone why didnt he go after the people that were trying to assissanate him (Jr) from So America - instead he sends his daughters down there to buy him property and a farm and sends a military detachment down there to guard it till he needs to use it?

[Bill]

I made my point in post 2. You stated S&J in post 3.

Last I heard, the LA Times is a right wing publication with an infamous new right wing editor. So take it up with your bosses - they're the ones saying they know what OBL's plans are, not me.

I didn't write the article. As I have repeated several times, but you seem incapable of cognizing, I'm not in a position to know.

I'm not really concerned with osama's plans. I'm interested in the military implications of Iraq, and the complications, logistics, and strategy involved in staying in Iraq long term.

[Southern Man]

[1]Unfortunately Harry is correct in this one - Saddam would have killed Bin Laden on the spot if he had ever run across him - especially after Bin Laden played CIA spy for the US for a while.

[2]Your source is unfortunately propaganda talking points and does not reflect real life - its nice talking points but totally untrue

[3]I suppose you believe the one about Saddam killing his own citizens with chemicals too? If you need some real history links I can point you at them - but the main point here would be that Saddam hated the ME terrorist groups and had them killed or jailed regularly.
…..

1. Nice theory but without backup I don’t believe you.
2. My “source” references about 130 articles by over 70 separate publications. If that’s your definition of propaganda then we really won’t be having a conversation.
3. See item 1 above.

[Southern Man]

Last I heard, the LA Times is a right wing publication with an infamous new right wing editor. So take it up with your bosses - they're the ones saying they know what OBL's plans are, not me.

I didn't write the article. As I have repeated several times, but you seem incapable of cognizing, I'm not in a position to know.

I'm not really concerned with osama's plans. I'm interested in the military implications of Iraq, and the complications, logistics, and strategy involved in staying in Iraq long term.

Looks like more S & J on your part.

[Bill]

Are you able to raise a point?

I can't respond when you don't raise a point to respond to.

[Southern Man]

Are you able to raise a point?

I can't respond when you don't raise a point to respond to. I made a point in Post 2 that you still have not responded to.

[Bill]

You appear to have some kind of communications problem.

State your point.

[Southern Man]

I have. It appears that you have a problem with reading comprehension.

[Bill]

Sorry to hear about your brain damage. Perhaps with rehabilitation your ability to communicate will improve.

---

Anyway, the issue is, despite the massive strain on the military, and the growing costs, we're going to have a connection to Iraq for many years to come.

Primarily because it contains the last known virgin superfield of light sweet crude on the planet, the last I checked.

But also because it represents a critical sector of middle east culture as a whole, and the problems in Iraq will expand to involve most of the countries in the middle east.

As most of you probably know, at some point in 2008, the logistics of a military presence start to get very difficult - most of the troops will be starting their 4th rotation, the reserves are starting to experience some really severe problems at home, just from a personnel point of view the war can't be maintained without a draft.

But, something I've said here before, but I don't think most folks get, is that a pullout from hostile territory is one of the most difficult of military manuevers. And, a simple pullout, which is what the majority of americans want (including perhaps especially those numbskulls who were originally all gung ho for the war) is both incredibly difficult, and extremely economically dangerous.

But, you're going to say, what about Vietnam? We pulled out there, 800,000 viets loyal to america were killed, but now vietnam loves america, right?

Yeah, well, you are forgetting two things. One - the viets were buddhist, and buddhists don't have a revenge culture, which the muslim and mideasterners DO have.

And two, the oil. We pull out, china and europe gets the oil, not the US. Vietnam had not one single natural resource we wanted and needed. Hell, all they sell us now is shrimp and catfish.

So, does anybody have any ideas about ways we can deal with the upcoming military logistical collapse, and not end up with an economic disaster?

[Southern Man]

Sorry to hear about your brain damage. Perhaps with rehabilitation your ability to communicate will improve.

......

That didn't take long for you to resort to direct insults. You obviously must be having trouble with the level of debate.