Quoted: Quoted: -SNIP- Spot on.  I sometimes get sick of explaining this over and over again to people.

+2

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why dont you need more forces in Afghanistan with most Nato troops refusing to fight or making sure thier forces stay in the North or limit them to rebuilding without actual combat roles.  It would seem that if anything more troops would stabilize it alittle more. Because thsoe reports are overblown for one, and for another in the areas that matter most our forces are still the ones there. It becomes a matter of many things, including diminishing returns, The infrastructure is just not there to support alot more troops, especially not the numbers we have in Iraq, and the role is just not there for them. In my time there, there was never once where any of us looked and said "we just don't have enough troops" Really how many Pashtuns are there anyways.. Plenty. Most are on our side. I fought alongside some that were great fighters and brave men who I would trust to watch my back under fire any day. Thats more than I can say for some people on here.... What you really need is to be able to freely cross into Waziristan with a large force and sort out the tribal areas once and for all. Thats a whole different matter.... and don't think that it would be even better if a well trained Afghan National Army did that for us, they hate the paki infiltrators more than we do I see what you mean about lacking the basic infrastructure to support more troops. But dont you think that with the exception of the North and maybe the East that outside of Kabul and around Kandahar and areas leading west that in the rural areas theres not alot of control? Unless somebody invades or controls the tribal areas, dont you think that the guerilla war will go on forever and the madrassas will continue to pump out idiots for their fight? Do you think it would be better to split Afghanistan up along tribal demarcations in the future to make it more stable? Those guys seem to have about a 1000 years of bad history between the factions that they might not get past. Perhaps a more improved version of the Balkans.. Trying to split up either IRQ or AFG will get you a real, popular anti-US insurgency in no time flat... They do not want their countries chopped up... By and large they just want to be able to self-govern as they see fit... Which is what we are letting them do... The 'resistance' in AFG is the remnants of the Taliban & those that they are able to recruit, who want back in power.... The enemy in Iraq is not a local 'resistance' force, but rather AQ's main force, attempting to salvage their abjectly fucked up attempt to oust us from Iraq and set up a Sunni islamist state....  The local resistance is actually, at this point, on our side (thanks to AQ's brutality & incompetence, their attempt to make Iraq too fucked up for us to handle has basically turned all factions against them... The Iraqis can't agree on who get's how much oil money, or how 'federal' their new republic should be... But they pretty much ALL agree on killing Al Queda these days)...

Yeah but the Kurds want their own country in the North and are very pro US (Turkey is obviously opposed to this idea). In the South the Shiites around Basra have talked in the past about a split.

I just find the concept of western democracy not somethign that we can sell or make work in the middle east or other regions around the world where religion or tribe race is more important than anything else.

It would be much more practical longterm if the US installed a vicious muslim dictator to keep the people in check, the area stable and the oil flowing. Seriously have they even gotten any of the fucks to show up for Parliment yet?

I just wonder if the US leaves how long it will be before the Iranians fabricate an excuse to invade to help thier "shiite" brothers who are being persecuted by the once again ruling Sunnis.

Quoted: I've been telling people this for years. Iraq was the perfect place to take the war to them and keeep them out of our fucking back yard.

BackYard?
There you have it right there.

1200 miles of southern border - wide open to even the poorest, least prepared "immigrant", yet we'll keep 3 or 4 divisions, a fleet or ships and all kinds of "embedded" news cameras(Action!) 12,000 miles to Iraq to chase around insurgents in the streets - all in the name of "protecting the homeland".
Casualty figures? Dollar figures? What's the point anymore.

All of this (yet another troubling facet of this "WoT") and still many don't won't notice that something's seriously amiss.
You tools will some day wake and realize your heads were taken to the cleaners - Maytag style, so have at it and take your cheap shots at me while I still give a damn about what goes on in this country.

I know what General Wesley Clark says to that...

"I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6ARihMrxdjU

But then again, he can't be trusted, he was just a general and all...

Quoted: To defeat Al Queda, you first have to get them to stand and fight - not just engage in delaying actions to cover the core elements retreat (See the early days of OEF & our work with the Northern Alliance), but to actually commit forces (such that they have) in 'defense' of something that they cannot afford to 'lose'... And the way to do this is to attack the region that provides the one component they CANNOT move (their core economic & political support)... That would be the Middle East... Whereas a failure to defend A-stan can be framed as a 'strategic maneuverl' and a 'defeat' for the US because AQ escaped (NM they ran away, they can always frame it as a 'brilliant maneuver' similar to how Saddam framed ODS in the Arab world)... A failure to defend a ME nation destroys AQ's position as the 'Defender of Islam' and severely damages their cedibility... Further, the establishment of a free Arab republic is a serious obstacle to AQ's end-goal of establishing a Sunni theocracy... So US troops in Iraq, attempting to help the Iraqis build a free republic is - to Al Queda - about the same as Russian troops in New York, attempting to set up the 'People's Republic of New York' would have been for us in 1950... They have to stop it or die trying.... Because a failure to do so WILL destroy them... The problem with your theory is that the Bush administration didn't use this as the justification to invade Iraq, they trumped up the WMD threat and told us those weapons might find their way into AQs hands.  They wanted to invade Iraq even before Al Qaida was public enemy number one.  They wanted to invade Iraq after the first Gulf War and were upset that this wasn't taken care of back then.  Not only is it an ex-post-facto justification to say that Al Qaeda was the reason for going into Iraq, the intelligence has put to bed the theory that there was cooperation between AQ and the Iraqi government.  The only "link" they ever gave was the fact that Zarqawi was in Iraq at some point.

The problem with your reasoning is that it was the Clinton Administration who made regime change in Iraq official US policy, not George Bush.  W only put action to Billy's rhetoric.

All the intelligence on Saddam's WMD was supported by other agencies and nations, and since Saddam had kicked out the UN inspectors long before the Eevil Neo-Cons took over they had to assume the reason he did so was to prevent them from finding his weapons.  Bush didn't "trump up" intelligence; virtually everyone, including Saddam's own generals, believed he still had WMD.

As for the threat of WMD being used by terrorists, if you'll remember in 2002 we were still reeling from the anthrax letter attacks that shut down the US Senate and killed several Americans.  In early 2003 I received a smallpox shot from my employer for that very reason:  There was evidence considered to be credible at the time that if the US invaded Iraq there would be a WMD attack as retaliation in the US.

Moroever, you cannot simply ignore the economic interest in controlling and protecting Iraq's oil.  In the year 2003 there would have been better countries to invade if you just wanted to kick terrorist ass than Iraq.

Which ones, for example.  I get the feeling if we had invaded any of them we'd be hearing the same arguments from Ron Paul and his band of neo-isolationists.

Quoted: I'm dealing with folks (like one of our PaulBots - M4C) who try to separate Iraq from the WOT by claiming that it 'took away from the REAL war in A-stan, and oh where is Bin Laden'... Usually followed by some sort of 'Bush lied' crap... I don't know if Bush lied or not but the reasoning you are giving for the war is not the same thing he told everyone when he wanted to build up a case for invasion.  So either your theory is wrong, or your theory is correct and Bush did lie.

Sorry, Bush made a multi-faceted case for the invasion of Iraq; it wasn't just the WMD.  It was for repeated violations of the UN-sponsored cease fire, any of which gave the US legal justification for deposing Saddam.  I remember listening to his speeches.

It was the Media and the Democrats, who, when they discovered that we had not found any WMD stockpiles used it to create an excuse for opposing the war without appearing two-faced about it.

Saddam was like a criminal on probation, and the US was his PO.  The fact that we might have erroneously arrested him for drug possession after numerous other documented violations of his probation doesn't mean he was innocent and didn't deserve to be taken down.

Quoted: You're slick - real slick Dave. You should run for prez. - or at least work for CNN. Your torturously-worded diatribe does boil down to this: But of course, it's much easier to blame Bush for 'side-tracking' into Iraq for (insert absurd reason here) than it is to actually analyze the situation... Answer: IT IS MUCH EASIER (and REQUIRED) TO BLAME THE ADMINISTRATION FOR NOT ACHIEVING RESULTS AS QUICKLY AND AS TIMELY AS POSSIBLE. "DEMOCRATIZING" OR "NATION BUILDING" IN IRAQ  IS THE MONUMENTAL SIDETRACK, THE FALSE PREMISE FOR DOING SO, AND THE DISHONEST, INCOMPETENT MANNER BY WHICH IT WAS DONE AT THE OUTSET, IS FULLY DESERVING OF THE IRE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - or at least the ones who give a shit anymore. Save your complex analysis for your upcoming U.N. speech, Mr Dave. Edit: to insert quote.

Not that this is the most disingenuous part of your post, but I just decided to point this one out.  I don't think Dave is crazy about the UN.  I KNOW he doesn't like CNN.

Quoted: Quoted: I see what you mean about lacking the basic infrastructure to support more troops. But dont you think that with the exception of the North and maybe the East that outside of Kabul and around Kandahar and areas leading west that in the rural areas theres not alot of control? The north and west have never really been an issue. The problem areas are the south and east... the areas with Pakistani border. And we control them pretty well too, the enemy tries to infiltarte from Pakistan but rarely can mass more than 5-6 people at a time Unless somebody invades or controls the tribal areas, dont you think that the guerilla war will go on forever and the madrassas will continue to pump out idiots for their fight? True. But invading tribal areas in Pakistan, no matter how much we don't want to admit it, is a bad idea at this time. That would do more to hurt Musharrafs hold on power, and we don't need that. There are no tribal controlled areas in Afghanistan. Want to know what set us back more than anything in the battle for those tribal areas? That damm earthquake! (I was there for it too, felt it pretty good in Afghanistan). Prior to that, the Pakistani military was making solid gains in controlling more territory. But they ahd to pull back to go provide earthquake relief, and that allowed the enemy there to regroup. Do you think it would be better to split Afghanistan up along tribal demarcations in the future to make it more stable? Those guys seem to have about a 1000 years of bad history between the factions that they might not get past. Perhaps a more improved version of the Balkans.. Not at all. One thing the new ANA is doing exactly right is mixing officers and enlisted men from all tribal backgrounds. The faster they start thinking of themselves as Afghans insteda of just Pastuns, Uzbecks, Tajics etc, they sooner the country will really do well. And that is happening, I saw it myself.

You know I dont much care if Bin Laden dies in a cave or swings on a rope..but it would be nice if somebody put out Omars other eye.  

Intersting you mention the quake, I bet the lunatics viewed it as a sign from allah that god was on their side...that is until the daisy cutter fell on them

Ive got a friend whos done 3 tours over there as a medic, it would be nice if Afghanistan was fixed once and for all.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: but Dave_A, where is Bin Laden? Is he in a muslim controlled enclave in SW China? I think most people would agree that his capture would help more so than letting him exist wherever he chooses. SO the plan of AQ all along was to be in IRAQ? Or we encouraged AQ to move operations there? Fighting an ideology is complicated at least, look at the War on Drugs...an enemy with no state. Most people put him on the western side of Pakistan where the Paki government doesnt have control. The local warlords control that area, and so BL doesnt have much to fear there. Its an almost perfect hiding spot because so many people are supportive of him there, and those people are also the ones in charge there. Aside from some UAV strikes there by the CIA its a huge safe haven for them.. purely speculation, him being in pakistan still...as speculative as him being in china, which would be another good place to hide...that is, if he is even alive.

Fuck Bin Laden, he is isolated and ineffective.  Lets use our resources where it will give the most STRATEGIC advantage to the US.

Iraq was a pretty damn good choice.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Don't forget, that at the time, everyone including the CIA, former Pres Clinton, the French intelligence service (since when have they been supportive?), the UN, and even Hillary thought that Saddam had a robust WMD program.  Little did we all know that he had been scamming us all along... bluffing a WMD program that would scare the Iranians from invasion yet keeping his country under tight control. That's another thread... I'm dealing with folks (like one of our PaulBots - M4C) who try to separate Iraq from the WOT by claiming that it 'took away from the REAL war in A-stan, and oh where is Bin Laden'... Usually followed by some sort of 'Bush lied' crap... They wont listen. They have watched enough news to know the truth, Bush lied, people died!

I think that's not as common as you think.  I don't understand why, since we were going to start shit, we9 didn't move east through Syria first.  Access to the Med, far easier supply lines, Iraq would have stayed boxed in for a few more years, and we could have isolated Lebanon and shut down that crap first by cutting off the Iranian money.  Then Iraq.  That puzzles me.  Iraq, from a strategy point of view, has never really made a lot of sense.

Of course, suggesting that there was a conspiracy suggests that the Bush idiots could pull one off, which is even sillier than "Bush lied, people died".

Quoted: Quoted: You're slick - real slick Dave. You should run for prez. - or at least work for CNN. Your torturously-worded diatribe does boil down to this: But of course, it's much easier to blame Bush for 'side-tracking' into Iraq for (insert absurd reason here) than it is to actually analyze the situation... Answer: IT IS MUCH EASIER (and REQUIRED) TO BLAME THE ADMINISTRATION FOR NOT ACHIEVING RESULTS AS QUICKLY AND AS TIMELY AS POSSIBLE.  Wrong - you can't defeat a global insurgency any faster than we are "DEMOCRATIZING" OR "NATION BUILDING" IN IRAQ  IS THE MONUMENTAL SIDETRACK, Wrong, it's a stake in AQ's heart THE FALSE PREMISE FOR DOING SO What, that he violated the ODS cease-fre? Hardly false, as he did violate said terms..., AND THE DISHONEST, INCOMPETENT MANNER BY WHICH IT WAS DONE AT THE OUTSET What, taking Baghdad in less than a month is 'incompetant'? Once again, your ignorance of the subject is shoiwng... And as for dishonest, once again, youre parroting antiwar talking points as gospel - 'Bush lied, people died, blah blah blah', IS FULLY DESERVING OF THE IRE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - or at least the ones who give a shit anymore. Or at least the duped & misinformed who think they know what's going on, because Dan Rather said so... Save your complex analysis for your upcoming U.N. speech, Mr Dave. UN? In case you haven't noticed, we do our own housekeeping these days, the UN can go screw themselves... One of the best things GW has done is move US foreign policy away from the UN - we justify ourselves to no one now... Edit: to insert quote. You didn't read any of the above, did you? Or are you so stuck in your beliefs that you're unwilling to see the bigger picture?

It is pretty common for anarcho Libertarians and or liberals.

Quoted: I know what General Wesley Clark says to that... "I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.” http://youtube.com/watch?v=6ARihMrxdjU But then again, he can't be trusted, he was just a general and all...

Since he WAS a General, and is no longer, I'm free to say this:

Wes Clark was an incompetent POS of an officer, who was hated & despised by those who served with him... He tried to use his rank to get in the White House in 04, only to find out that simply having rank doesn't cut it, when your peers & former subordinates come out against you...

He went from bad general to political hack... And failed rather miserably at politics too...

P.S. G.A. Custer was also a General (1-star, albeit) at one time... I suppose we should consult him on matters of cavalry tactics & dealing with Indians, maybe????

Quoted: Quoted: I know what General Wesley Clark says to that... "I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.” http://youtube.com/watch?v=6ARihMrxdjU But then again, he can't be trusted, he was just a general and all... Since he WAS a General, and is no longer, I'm free to say this: Wes Clark was an incompetent POS of an officer, who was hated & despised by those who served with him... He tried to use his rank to get in the White House in 04, only to find out that simply having rank doesn't cut it, when your peers & former subordinates come out against you... He went from bad general to political hack... And failed rather miserably at politics too...

You are forgetting that he nearly got us into a shooting war with the Russians over an airfield.

It doesn't mean that he was lying, since that account has been backed up by tons of other people.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved. We did that, Afghanistan.  Next on the list was Iraq.  Is this all too hard for you to understand? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghan? How many were Iraqi? If you'd had comprehended Dave's post you would have understood we are not fighting a country but an ideology/group that has NO country. Just because some of the attackers were Saudi doesnt mean anything. Saudi society is directly responsible for creating the terrorists directly responsible for both twin towers attacks. There will be no shortage of islamic terrorist until we address their Saudi backers, the saudi schools that create them, the rich saudis who fund them while faking friendship with the US.

You show you have little understanding of Saudi society.  It is WAY more complex than that.  Honestly there is no great solution to that problem.  But invasion, embargos or cutting off diplomatic relations would cause WAY more problems than it would solve.  The way it is now we have some influence on them.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved. We did that, Afghanistan.  Next on the list was Iraq.  Is this all too hard for you to understand? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghan? How many were Iraqi? If you'd had comprehended Dave's post you would have understood we are not fighting a country but an ideology/group that has NO country. Just because some of the attackers were Saudi doesnt mean anything. Saudi society is directly responsible for creating the terrorists directly responsible for both twin towers attacks. There will be no shortage of islamic terrorist until we address their Saudi backers, the saudi schools that create them, the rich saudis who fund them while faking friendship with the US. You show you have little understanding of Saudi society.  It is WAY more complex than that.  Honestly there is no great solution to that problem.  But invasion, embargos or cutting off diplomatic relations would cause WAY more problems than it would solve.  The way it is now we have some influence on them.

I would say that I have more than a passing familiarity with Saudis and Saudi society and that comment seemed right on target.  What did you not like?

Quoted: Quoted: I know what General Wesley Clark says to that... "I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.” http://youtube.com/watch?v=6ARihMrxdjU But then again, he can't be trusted, he was just a general and all... Since he WAS a General, and is no longer, I'm free to say this: Wes Clark was an incompetent POS of an officer, who was hated & despised by those who served with him... He tried to use his rank to get in the White House in 04, only to find out that simply having rank doesn't cut it, when your peers & former subordinates come out against you... He went from bad general to political hack... And failed rather miserably at politics too...

SO what does all that character assassination have to do with what he stated?

You're saying he lied about everything he said?
I'm calling you out Dave.
Pony up the proof.

That's a pretty bold move on your part. It shows bitterness and desperation.

Quoted: Yeah but the Kurds want their own country in the North and are very pro US (Turkey is obviously opposed to this idea). In the South the Shiites around Basra have talked in the past about a split. Your info is a bit off - SOME Kurdish groups (generally seen as terrorists by the US, Turkey and Iraq alike)... MOST want US-style federalism (eg Kurdish, Sunny & Shiite provinces tied together by a federal central government).... The Shiites have NO reason to want the nation split up, as they are the largest voting bloc and stand to gain the most from a monolithic parliamentary government I just find the concept of western democracy not somethign that we can sell or make work in the middle east or other regions around the world where religion or tribe race is more important than anything else. Freedom works anywhere it can take root... The Iraqis may not be establishing a 'Mini United States' in Iraq, but they ARE establishing (and willing to die for) a representative & elected government.... It would be much more practical longterm if the US installed a vicious muslim dictator to keep the people in check, the area stable and the oil flowing. NO, as that would only encourage & empower Al Queda. Remember: We are there to destroy AQ, not to 'keep the oil flowing'... And to destroy AQ we have to free Iraq & give the people elected self rule Seriously have they even gotten any of the fucks to show up for Parliment yet? Again, the media has you duped... The whole 'show up for Parliment' was being thrown up to try and discredit the surge back in September... The Iraqi Parliment took a recess while debating some particularly sticky legislation (something our Congress does all the time)... When in session, they DO show up - the 'problem' is that they are still learning to deal with gridlock & the red-tape that comes with a free society... Iraqis have been known to ask US troops if politics works so slowly/inefficiently in our country, only to be surprised when we say 'Even slower & worse'.... I just wonder if the US leaves how long it will be before the Iranians fabricate an excuse to invade to help thier "shiite" brothers who are being persecuted by the once again ruling Sunnis. You have your factions backwards... The Shiites are the ones running the Iraqi government, as they have the electoral majority... And Iran is allready 'balls deep' in Iraq, supporting various groups on both sides in an effort to keep the US military too busy to engage in additional 'Regime Change'... They know that as long as we are busy in Iraq, their ass-kicking is on hold

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I've been telling people this for years. Iraq was the perfect place to take the war to them and keeep them out of our fucking back yard. BackYard? There you have it right there. 1200 miles of southern border - wide open to even the poorest, least prepared "immigrant", yet we'll keep 3 or 4 divisions, a fleet or ships and all kinds of "embedded" news cameras(Action!) 12,000 miles to Iraq to chase around insurgents in the streets - all in the name of "protecting the homeland". Casualty figures? Dollar figures? What's the point anymore. All of this (yet another troubling facet of this "WoT") and still many don't won't notice that something's seriously amiss. You tools will some day wake and realize your heads were taken to the cleaners - Maytag style, so have at it and take your cheap shots at me while I still give a damn about what goes on in this country. So you can't argue with all the facts here and now you try diverting attention to the border? Stay on topic. Even if it means you keep getting schooled on how wrong you are.

I know the border is a touchy issue for you guys (most even have their own personal feelings on it to lock it down.).
But it's essentially unchanged since '01 isn't it?
It puts a big hole in your whole Iraq scheme.
School me again, sweetiepie.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved. We did that, Afghanistan.  Next on the list was Iraq.  Is this all too hard for you to understand? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghan? How many were Iraqi?

Where were they trained?  Should we have attacked the flight schools?

Saudi Arabia did not fund their terror training.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I've been telling people this for years. Iraq was the perfect place to take the war to them and keeep them out of our fucking back yard. BackYard? There you have it right there. 1200 miles of southern border - wide open to even the poorest, least prepared "immigrant", yet we'll keep 3 or 4 divisions, a fleet or ships and all kinds of "embedded" news cameras(Action!) 12,000 miles to Iraq to chase around insurgents in the streets - all in the name of "protecting the homeland". Casualty figures? Dollar figures? What's the point anymore. All of this (yet another troubling facet of this "WoT") and still many don't won't notice that something's seriously amiss. You tools will some day wake and realize your heads were taken to the cleaners - Maytag style, so have at it and take your cheap shots at me while I still give a damn about what goes on in this country. So you can't argue with all the facts here and now you try diverting attention to the border? Stay on topic. Even if it means you keep getting schooled on how wrong you are. I know the border is a touchy issue for you guys (most even have their own personal feelings on it to lock it down.). But it's essentially unchanged since '01 isn't it? It puts a big hole in your whole Iraq scheme. School me again, sweetiepie.

The border is near irrelevant to this campaign...

It's been wide open since 1776...

Yet terrorists don't use that point of entrance, but rather get papers and enter legally - not ONCE have we been attacked by anyone who crossed the Mexican border illegally - not since the early 1900s (Pancho Villa), anyway...

And trying to paint a bunch of economic refugees as a 'threat' to the US is patently absurd... It's essentially a straw-man argument - you are trying to fabricate a 'threat' that does not exist, and then point at it and say 'OOOH... MEXICANS... MORE DANGEROUS THAN AL QUEDA'... BULLSHIT

The immigration issue needs to be dealt with eventually...

But it has NOTHING to do with the war on terror...

If we destroy Al Queda, they can't exactly attack us across the border, can they....

If they have to commit every last operative & foot solider to trying (futilely) to throw us out of Iraq, they're not going to have any to send here...

And putting combat troops on border sentry duty just invites corruption & destroys combat effectiveness...

The border is a LAW ENFORCEMENT problem, NOT a military one...

And it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the topic at hand...

Interesting stuff here tonight.
Taggage

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I know what General Wesley Clark says to that... "I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.” http://youtube.com/watch?v=6ARihMrxdjU But then again, he can't be trusted, he was just a general and all... Since he WAS a General, and is no longer, I'm free to say this: Wes Clark was an incompetent POS of an officer, who was hated & despised by those who served with him... He tried to use his rank to get in the White House in 04, only to find out that simply having rank doesn't cut it, when your peers & former subordinates come out against you... He went from bad general to political hack... And failed rather miserably at politics too... SO what does all that character assassination have to do with what he stated? You're saying he lied about everything he said? Would be par for the course I'm calling you out Dave. Pony up the proof. Wes was retired in 01 and did not have access to the information he claims to have had first hand access to. Due to the circumstances of his retirement (he was effectively FIRED), and his rather infamous poor relations with other senior officers, he would NOT have had the 'inside scoop' he is claiming to posses... That's a pretty bold move on your part. It shows bitterness and desperation. Hardly... I am merely re-posting well known facts that were commonly stated on this board when that POS tried to run for President... By folks who served with/under him, no less, IIRC... There is a reason why the Democrats took a former LTJG (O-2) in the Navy over a former (and 'forcibly retired' - eg FIRED) General (O-10) in the Army in 2004 - Clark would have been much easier to 'Swift Boat' than Kerry, and they knew it... Too much bad baggage...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Don't forget, that at the time, everyone including the CIA, former Pres Clinton, the French intelligence service (since when have they been supportive?), the UN, and even Hillary thought that Saddam had a robust WMD program.  Little did we all know that he had been scamming us all along... bluffing a WMD program that would scare the Iranians from invasion yet keeping his country under tight control. That's another thread... I'm dealing with folks (like one of our PaulBots - M4C) who try to separate Iraq from the WOT by claiming that it 'took away from the REAL war in A-stan, and oh where is Bin Laden'... Usually followed by some sort of 'Bush lied' crap... They wont listen. They have watched enough news to know the truth, Bush lied, people died!

I've said all along taking Iraq was key. Hitting Afgan alone would not bring down AQ.

+1 Taggage,
 2 am to work comes too quickly to stay with this topic.
 

I'm going to cap this thread  with a few more words.

Neo-Con excuse-making knows no bounds.

They like wars, big spending, government power-wielding ever more. Kick ass, take names, protect America - show em what we're made of!
Defend America? Hell no - we're the King of the world! The newest neo-cons grew up bratty, and they're used to getting what they want.
To the ends of the earth if necessary. Details don't matter. Trust in leaders be damned. It's easier that way.  Supreme Law of the Land - Huh?
I liked it too. It's sort of a power trip. It's a primordial thing. I was comfortably enjoying this blissful power trip until 35 years of age. I realized the more important things in my life   - about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Then the party was over.
All this neo-con gaming has a price. Big price.
Aside from the obvious (lives and treasure), one has to consider that among the little power-trippers, there are even bigger power-trippers. The little ones serve the big ones. Ring a bell? The neo-con machine.  Get sucked in, you'll have to climb out on your own. Then you'll get your mind back.
Welcome to America - a free man.



Thanks for the invite Dave.

Quoted: I'm going to cap this thread  with a few more words. Neo-Con excuse-making knows no bounds. They like wars, big spending, government power-wielding ever more. Kick ass, take names, protect America - show em what we're made of! Defend America? Hell no - we're the King of the world! Pure defense is a losing game... Which is why you ATTACK the enemy rather than sitting back waiting for them to attack you... The newest neo-cons grew up bratty, and they're used to getting what they want. To the ends of the earth if necessary. Details don't matter. Details do matter, but folks like you gloss right over them looking for a quick, easy, simple fix... Trust in leaders be damned. It's easier that way.  WTF? I don't think anyone on my side of the fence is having trouble trusting Gen Petreus, or the President... Congress isn't doing too well on that regard, though Supreme Law of the Land - Huh? The war in Iraq is fully constitutional. Ironically, Ron Paul's position that Congress MUST declare war for us to fight is UNCONSTITUTIONAL I liked it too. It's sort of a power trip. It's a primordial thing. The safety & security of the US is NOT a power trip... Sorry, FAIL I was comfortably enjoying this blissful power trip until 35 years of age. I realized the more important things in my life   - about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All made possible by our foreign policy & national power... Without which we'd be a subordinate client of some other power, economically, politically & militarily DEPENDANT... Sorry, no go Then the party was over No, you just moved to a different one... You're still 'partying away' off in la-la land, chasing a dream that has NEVER been the American way, despite the revisionist history & pure BS your new masters feed you.... All this neo-con gaming has a price. Big price. Not as great as the price of anarcho-libertarianisim... Aside from the obvious (lives and treasure), one has to consider that among the little power-trippers, there are even bigger power-trippers. The little ones serve the big ones. And once again, we are off in foil-hat land Ring a bell? The neo-con machine.  Get sucked in, you'll have to climb out on your own. Then you'll get your mind back. Sorry to disappoint you, but my mind is my own, and has come to these conclusions all on it's own... Welcome to America - a free man. Not if we head down the road you want us to Thanks for the invite Dave.

Pathetic...

You can't argue for shit, so you post that crap...

Folks like you are EXACTLY the reason why we have to have a dumbed-down-explanation for every war we fight... You just don't get what's going on, beyond simplistic situations like WMD or the exploding USS Maine....

Probably why you've been sucked in by the anarcho-libertarian/Confederates-were-right/NWO/NAU/corporate-conspiracy too....

Quoted: Quoted: I'm going to cap this thread  with a few more words. Neo-Con excuse-making knows no bounds. They like wars, big spending, government power-wielding ever more. Kick ass, take names, protect America - show em what we're made of! Defend America? Hell no - we're the King of the world! The newest neo-cons grew up bratty, and they're used to getting what they want. To the ends of the earth if necessary. Details don't matter. Trust in leaders be damned. It's easier that way.  Supreme Law of the Land - Huh? I liked it too. It's sort of a power trip. It's a primordial thing. I was comfortably enjoying this blissful power trip until 35 years of age. I realized the more important things in my life   - about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Then the party was over. All this neo-con gaming has a price. Big price. Aside from the obvious (lives and treasure), one has to consider that among the little power-trippers, there are even bigger power-trippers. The little ones serve the big ones. Ring a bell? The neo-con machine.  Get sucked in, you'll have to climb out on your own. Then you'll get your mind back. Welcome to America - a free man. Thanks for the invite Dave. Anothor typical whacked out Paul supporter. You should see if they will put this little semi-coherant tinfoil laced rant on the side of the blimp.

Or maybe Ron is looking for a new 'ghostwriter' for his newsletters...

M4C would fit right in with the last one, eh?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved. We did that, Afghanistan.  Next on the list was Iraq.  Is this all too hard for you to understand? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghan? How many were Iraqi? If you'd had comprehended Dave's post you would have understood we are not fighting a country but an ideology/group that has NO country. Just because some of the attackers were Saudi doesnt mean anything. Saudi society is directly responsible for creating the terrorists directly responsible for both twin towers attacks. There will be no shortage of islamic terrorist until we address their Saudi backers, the saudi schools that create them, the rich saudis who fund them while faking friendship with the US. You show you have little understanding of Saudi society.  It is WAY more complex than that.  Honestly there is no great solution to that problem.  But invasion, embargos or cutting off diplomatic relations would cause WAY more problems than it would solve.  The way it is now we have some influence on them.   I would say that I have more than a passing familiarity with Saudis and Saudi society and that comment seemed right on target.  What did you not like?

Since you are one of the few non-military here who I think might be able to find Saudi Arabia on a map, I am interested in what you are getting at?  How do you think it would be best to influence the Saudis - surely you don't think overthrowing the best thing we have going would help?

Long term success here in Iraq - while a long shot - is probably our best chance of truly influencing less radicalism out of Saudi Arabia.

I am not seeing many people offering any better ideas - just a bunch of "woulda coulda shoulda" based on bad info, bad memory, and bad situational awareness.

Quoted: Quoted: I know the border is a touchy issue for you guys (most even have their own personal feelings on it to lock it down.). But it's essentially unchanged since '01 isn't it? It puts a big hole in your whole Iraq scheme. School me again, sweetiepie. Hey, I want it secure too. But thats a domestic law enforcement issue, not a military one. I want a big fence or wall as part of a mutli-faced system of physical security, something your man Pual is offended by. But, regardless, the border has nothing to do with the fight oevrseas. But you have already demonstrated you lack the mental capacity to understand the issue, so I don't expect you to be able to seperate them anyway. Seperate fronts in a loosley connected overall big picture.

Besides, the Mexicans weren't responsible for 9/11.  If we focus efforts on the border, wouldn't we be doing the same thing he accuses us of doing in Iraq?  Does he think Bin Laden is in Mexico now?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved. We did that, Afghanistan.  Next on the list was Iraq.  Is this all too hard for you to understand? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghan? How many were Iraqi? If you'd had comprehended Dave's post you would have understood we are not fighting a country but an ideology/group that has NO country. Just because some of the attackers were Saudi doesnt mean anything. Saudi society is directly responsible for creating the terrorists directly responsible for both twin towers attacks. There will be no shortage of islamic terrorist until we address their Saudi backers, the saudi schools that create them, the rich saudis who fund them while faking friendship with the US. You show you have little understanding of Saudi society.  It is WAY more complex than that.  Honestly there is no great solution to that problem.  But invasion, embargos or cutting off diplomatic relations would cause WAY more problems than it would solve.  The way it is now we have some influence on them.   I would say that I have more than a passing familiarity with Saudis and Saudi society and that comment seemed right on target.  What did you not like?

The Saudis ruling family has to tread a very fine line to stay in power.  It is good for us for them to be in power vs a non stable Saudi or an unfriendly .gov.  We are VERY unlikely to get a .gov more friendly over there.  If we go and upset the apple cart it will jepordize the ruling families hold on power.

As I said there is not an ideal solution.  In effect we have to let the Saudis turn a blind eye to some while they fight others, cause if we get involved internally in Saudi we WILL fuck it all up.  

And invading Saudi is a WHOLE different ballgame than invading Iraq and would be immensely stupid.  Both militarily and politically.  But if you are familiar with Middle East politics you will know that.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You show you have little understanding of Saudi society.  It is WAY more complex than that.  Honestly there is no great solution to that problem.  But invasion, embargos or cutting off diplomatic relations would cause WAY more problems than it would solve.  The way it is now we have some influence on them.   I would say that I have more than a passing familiarity with Saudis and Saudi society and that comment seemed right on target.  What did you not like? Since you are one of the few non-military here who I think might be able to find Saudi Arabia on a map, I am interested in what you are getting at?  How do you think it would be best to influence the Saudis - surely you don't think overthrowing the best thing we have going would help? Long term success here in Iraq - while a long shot - is probably our best chance of truly influencing less radicalism out of Saudi Arabia. I am not seeing many people offering any better ideas - just a bunch of "woulda coulda shoulda" based on bad info, bad memory, and bad situational awareness.

Saudi Arabia has several problems:

1.  Tribal:  The Saudi ruling class occupies the only predominantly Shiite part of Saudi Arabia, and they are Sunnis.  The southwesten part of Saudi Arabia is ethnographically and tribally different, has been there for a long time, and deeply resents the ruling clan making decisions.  Also, they think that they can run Mecca and Medina better, and they like the Jordanians a lot.  The Southestern corner used to be called "Arabia Felix" or lucky Arabia.  It is essentially Yemen.  And the folke there know it.  They don't like taking orders from the House of Saud either, they see OBL as a local boy made good, and are far more interested in Yemeni tribal infighting than "non-Yemenis" should be.  Plus, a lot of them are part black, look it, and get looked down on by the rest of the Saudis because of it, and they don't like it at all.  And then we have the southern part of the Shiite Crescent, which happens to sit Saudi Arabias oppressed and pissed off Shiite minority right on almost all of Saudi Arabias major oil fields.

2.  Deficit Spending:  In my lifetime, Saudi Arabia kept two years budget in foreign currency reserves outside of the country.  Those days are over.  The deficit spending is massive, and getting worse, and the House of Saud has encouraged the Saudis to have lots of kids.

3.  Education:  All of the Muslim Brotherhood guys that the Saudis brought in to teach their klids are the only game in town.  So the kids get an amazingly crappy education.  But that doesn't matter, because of the next point.

4.  Arrogance:  The "Saudi attitude" is well known in the Gulf.  I have had to deal with it mysefl.  It is worse inside the kingdom.  Saudis all feel that they shouldn't have to work, that they should have servants and slaves (literally), and that they should all have lots of wives.  About 40% of all Saudi men are on welfare right now, and the numbers go up as the ages go down.  Saudis refuse to do manual labor (except for the Yemenis from Arabia Felix, who are looked down on for working for a living).

5.  The oil flow is slowing down:  ARAMCO is panicing.  They are going to have to shut in a lot of wells over the next ten years and the total Saudi output will drop sharply.  The thing is, the tribes are sticking around for the money -- and will take off ASAP when there is no reason to stay, the Shiites will want what oil is left and if the rest of Saudi bolts, they may take it from the minority Sunnis right there, there are lots and lots of young Saudis who want to know where their 2 hour a day/$300,000 a year job is and they aren't going to be happy when they are told that the money has run out, and finally, you have a whole generation of Saudis that believe that their rightful place is on the top of the heap and they are about to deal with the reality that that isn't the case anymore without any education or life experience to prepare them for it.

Saudi Arabia is really fragile.  But it is also funding huge amounts of terrorism and the government has only started to cooperate in the last two years with the US on key issues, and only because we have started really leaning on them.  They are producing tons of radicals and they are a key part of the problem.  These are Saudi government schools.  Saudi's wealthy are still sending hundreds of millions out of the country, largely through government-sanctioned "Ilsamic charities" that go directly to fund terrorism and to kill Americans.  The Saudis have started cooperating on this IN THE LAST YEAR.  And finally, the government of Saudi Arabia is full of Saudis that actually use their official position to provide aid and comfort to terrorists engaged in killing Americans.  The kingdom is aware of this, and considers their internal family squabbles to be more important that dead Americans.

As Saudi Arabia is fragile.  They know it.  They also know that if they screw up, they will lose everything, and I think that we could be applying a heck of a lot more leverage than we are.  They are still a huge part of the global terrorism problem.  It is high time that we started leaning on them hard.  They really can't afford to piss us off and (this is key) they also can't afford to stop selling oil, so it's not like they can cut us off.  They are kinda-sorta desperate to sell oil, in fact, and they haven't increased their output because they can't -- their water cut from some of their fields is 75-80% -- and the need our help.  It is high time we started holding these assholes' feet to the fire.

So we invade A-stan to destabilize AQ then we go into Iraq (because it's begging for democracy) to draw in various AQ and extremists while we build a democratic state? Do I have that right?

ETA: I believe we are doing the right thing in the Middle East. And I am grateful for the men and women that fight for our country. I personally believe that the main goal of our presence in the middle east is to,

A: Destabilize it in order to keep a cohesive Arab nation (Ottoman Empire II) from forming which would be a direct threat to the U.S. and Israel by being a haven for jihadists and a military power in the region.

B: Bring western capitalistic culture to the region.

C: Gain a major foothold in the region to project power and prevent China from moving in.

Quoted: So we invade A-stan to destabilize AQ then we go into Iraq (because it's begging for democracy) to draw in various AQ and extremists while we build a democratic state? Do I have that right?

Only if you just stepped off the short bus.  Hussein was a MAJOR destabilizing factor in the Middle East and it wasn't but a matter of time before he reconstituted his war machine.  The 5 years of non-compliance with cease fire accords was justification enough, only the un was UNable to engforce these accords.  Or unwilling.

Then we have Salman Pak which was unquestionably a terror training facility in post 1998 Iraq.  And the linkage between AQ, Salman Pak and al Shifa chemical plant in Sudan.  Here, AQ operatives had funded a pilot plant operation for manufacture of EMPTA in late 1997 to the tune of about $200,000 USD equivalent.   The source of the funds? Iraq. EMPTA has but one use, that being binary VX nerve agent.  This was thwarted by President Clinton's cruise missle attack in 1998.  Why would Iraq want VX?  Because they had a poor history with storage life of GB nerve agent from the Iran war.  By the time they got the GB shells to the front line, it had decomposed to the point of being nearly useless.  Having a supply of EMPTA would allow for the most potent nerve agent for their front line arty crews.  And since VX is a persistent nerve agent, it is much more effective as a nerve agent.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You show you have little understanding of Saudi society.  It is WAY more complex than that.  Honestly there is no great solution to that problem.  But invasion, embargos or cutting off diplomatic relations would cause WAY more problems than it would solve.  The way it is now we have some influence on them.   I would say that I have more than a passing familiarity with Saudis and Saudi society and that comment seemed right on target.  What did you not like? Since you are one of the few non-military here who I think might be able to find Saudi Arabia on a map, I am interested in what you are getting at?  How do you think it would be best to influence the Saudis - surely you don't think overthrowing the best thing we have going would help? Long term success here in Iraq - while a long shot - is probably our best chance of truly influencing less radicalism out of Saudi Arabia. I am not seeing many people offering any better ideas - just a bunch of "woulda coulda shoulda" based on bad info, bad memory, and bad situational awareness. Saudi Arabia has several problems: 1.  Tribal:  The Saudi ruling class occupies the only predominantly Shiite part of Saudi Arabia, and they are Sunnis.  The southwesten part of Saudi Arabia is ethnographically and tribally different, has been there for a long time, and deeply resents the ruling clan making decisions.  Also, they think that they can run Mecca and Medina better, and they like the Jordanians a lot.  The Southestern corner used to be called "Arabia Felix" or lucky Arabia.  It is essentially Yemen.  And the folke there know it.  They don't like taking orders from the House of Saud either, they see OBL as a local boy made good, and are far more interested in Yemeni tribal infighting than "non-Yemenis" should be.  Plus, a lot of them are part black, look it, and get looked down on by the rest of the Saudis because of it, and they don't like it at all.  And then we have the southern part of the Shiite Crescent, which happens to sit Saudi Arabias oppressed and pissed off Shiite minority right on almost all of Saudi Arabias major oil fields. 2.  Deficit Spending:  In my lifetime, Saudi Arabia kept two years budget in foreign currency reserves outside of the country.  Those days are over.  The deficit spending is massive, and getting worse, and the House of Saud has encouraged the Saudis to have lots of kids. 3.  Education:  All of the Muslim Brotherhood guys that the Saudis brought in to teach their klids are the only game in town.  So the kids get an amazingly crappy education.  But that doesn't matter, because of the next point. 4.  Arrogance:  The "Saudi attitude" is well known in the Gulf.  I have had to deal with it mysefl.  It is worse inside the kingdom.  Saudis all feel that they shouldn't have to work, that they should have servants and slaves (literally), and that they should all have lots of wives.  About 40% of all Saudi men are on welfare right now, and the numbers go up as the ages go down.  Saudis refuse to do manual labor (except for the Yemenis from Arabia Felix, who are looked down on for working for a living). 5.  The oil flow is slowing down:  ARAMCO is panicing.  They are going to have to shut in a lot of wells over the next ten years and the total Saudi output will drop sharply.  The thing is, the tribes are sticking around for the money -- and will take off ASAP when there is no reason to stay, the Shiites will want what oil is left and if the rest of Saudi bolts, they may take it from the minority Sunnis right there, there are lots and lots of young Saudis who want to know where their 2 hour a day/$300,000 a year job is and they aren't going to be happy when they are told that the money has run out, and finally, you have a whole generation of Saudis that believe that their rightful place is on the top of the heap and they are about to deal with the reality that that isn't the case anymore without any education or life experience to prepare them for it. Saudi Arabia is really fragile.  But it is also funding huge amounts of terrorism and the government has only started to cooperate in the last two years with the US on key issues, and only because we have started really leaning on them.  They are producing tons of radicals and they are a key part of the problem.  These are Saudi government schools.  Saudi's wealthy are still sending hundreds of millions out of the country, largely through government-sanctioned "Ilsamic charities" that go directly to fund terrorism and to kill Americans.  The Saudis have started cooperating on this IN THE LAST YEAR.  And finally, the government of Saudi Arabia is full of Saudis that actually use their official position to provide aid and comfort to terrorists engaged in killing Americans.  The kingdom is aware of this, and considers their internal family squabbles to be more important that dead Americans. As Saudi Arabia is fragile.  They know it.  They also know that if they screw up, they will lose everything, and I think that we could be applying a heck of a lot more leverage than we are.  They are still a huge part of the global terrorism problem.  It is high time that we started leaning on them hard.  They really can't afford to piss us off and (this is key) they also can't afford to stop selling oil, so it's not like they can cut us off.  They are kinda-sorta desperate to sell oil, in fact, and they haven't increased their output because they can't -- their water cut from some of their fields is 75-80% -- and the need our help.  It is high time we started holding these assholes' feet to the fire.

I think we are in agreement - it's just that the person you seemed to be agreeing with seemed to be suggesting military action.  If the house of Saud were overthrown, we would quickly yearn for the days that they were in charge, IMHO.

I find it doubly ironic that some of the same people suggesting Saddam Hussein was a great thing to have in Iraq, and that now say we need to scrap the current strategy in iraq and appoint a strongman dictator - are also suggesting that overthrowing the one thing apparently keeping Saudi Arabia somewhat together and moderated would be a good thing.

Twoprod

nice concise summary of the wahabbist shithole that is Saudiland. Really what does the world expect when over 70% of university students graduate with Theology as their major.

But the oil wont last forever....

Quoted:
quote]

Then you know invading them would be a bad idea all around.

Check AR15fans whole train of thought before you start agreeing with him.

I'm all for a little pressure though.  And one of the best forms of pressure we could put on Saudi is to start drilling our own resources here.  Coastal ANWR.  We don't even have to drill much.  Just the threat of us lowering our demand from them would make them shit a brick.

ost

Saddam wouldn't allow UN weapons inspectors into certain areas.

We told them to let the inspectors in or we'd invade..

They still didn't let them in.

E V E R Y O N E said we should invade.

We invaded.

How do people still have a problem with this? I don't like Bush for his stance on immigration, but as far as Iraq theres no error. Sure Saddam didn't have WMD's (though you could still argue they're in Syria, but we'll ignore that issue for now). The simple fact is Saddam didn't let the weapons inspectors in and we invaded like we said we would. He should've taken us seriously and obided by treaties he agreed to earlier. Now he's dead and we run the place. Too bad for him.

I have no problem with us invading Iraq or staying there finishing the job.

I'm just here to lend moral support to the  Ron Paul supporters.

Google Iraq, Yellowcake uranium, and centrifuge tubes. While there is no PROOF that Iraq wanted Nukes post desert storm, you can easily reason that S.H. had nuclear ambitions.

Quoted: Quoted: How could Bush have lied? Is he the one collecting and analyzing intel? Did he tell the CIA to make up the WMD threat, and then compel many other countries to also lie about it? He has people called advisors and agency directors that go to him with that they have, and then he makes a decision based off what they tell him. Was he supposed to halo jump into Iraq and search the country to make sure the intel he got was correct? It was a failure of our intel community based on the information they had at the time. No one made anything up, no one lied about it, and we did what we thought was best at the time and so did the majority of the politicians who voted to authorize us to invade. Of course now that a bit of pressure is on everyone about the WMD issue NO ONE will take any responsibility for it and just play the blame Bush game. The buck stops at his desk.  Maybe you don't think that's fair but that's part of how it works.  And besides, a lot of people have spent a lot of time analyzing the events that led up to the war and the indication is that he knew that this intel was not greatly reliable but it told him what he wanted to hear so he used it anyway.  I won't claim that he 'lied' because there is simply no way for us to know everything he knew at the time.

First time I've heard that! Where did the 24 tons of chemical weapons in Jordan in the possession of Alqada come from anyway?

Quoted: Quoted: quote] Then you know invading them would be a bad idea all around. Check AR15fans whole train of thought before you start agreeing with him. I'm all for a little pressure though.  And one of the best forms of pressure we could put on Saudi is to start drilling our own resources here.  Coastal ANWR.  We don't even have to drill much.  Just the threat of us lowering our demand from them would make them shit a brick.

Saudi Arabia provides much of the stability in the ME. Why people even suggest invading it is beyond me, and it would spark a world wide goat fuck if US troops tromping all around Mecca was broadcast around the world on TV.

My dad is currently working in SA and we have as good of working relationship with them as we can with a muslim nation....

I believe we should make a dead line to the Iraqi government though in the legislation
on how the oil revenues will be split up.

That is a huge step and it is one step closer to us leaving.

They seem to not be able to reach a agreement on this.

Quoted: I believe we should make a dead line to the Iraqi government though in the legislation on how the oil revenues will be split up. That is a huge step and it is one step closer to us leaving. They seem to not be able to reach a agreement on this.

That has nothing to do with us leaving, despite what the press says...

And setting deadlines for them undermines our entire position - namely that we are there to give them free self government...

They're gridlocked.. So what? Welcome to free government, Iraq... That's how it's supposed to work...

Eventually, their voters will demand action and a compromise will be reached...

Hell, the US can't even agree on drilling for our OWN oil... But we expect the Iraqis to push through on an issue WE can't get un-gridlocked on?

Absurd....

Quoted: Quoted: I've been telling people this for years. Iraq was the perfect place to take the war to them and keeep them out of our fucking back yard. BackYard? There you have it right there. 1200 miles of southern border - wide open to even the poorest, least prepared "immigrant", yet we'll keep 3 or 4 divisions, a fleet or ships and all kinds of "embedded" news cameras(Action!) 12,000 miles to Iraq to chase around insurgents in the streets - all in the name of "protecting the homeland". Casualty figures? Dollar figures? What's the point anymore. All of this (yet another troubling facet of this "WoT") and still many don't won't notice that something's seriously amiss. You tools will some day wake and realize your heads were taken to the cleaners - Maytag style, so have at it and take your cheap shots at me while I still give a damn about what goes on in this country.

+1