Woulda-coulda-shouldas on Iraq - New England Patriots Forums

***IcyPatriot*** · 03-23-2008, 08:09 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...s_on_iraq.html

Quote:

The woulda-coulda-shouldas sprang forth on the five-year anniversary of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein last week. It was Monday morning quarterbacking, mostly. Pundits confuse their personal brainstorms with history, and pretend they could have carried that football better than George W. Bush did in 2003; or even more bizarrely, they imagine there was no game at all that day. Saddam was obviously harmless, as the media think they know after the fact. 9/11 was a one-time accident. On Monday morning everything is clear.

Rational wars are waged for strategic goals, and yes, Iraq is a rational war. But to understand geopolitical strategy you have to look at a map, understand our life-and-death dependence on oil, face the spread of mass-killing weapons, watch the rise of deeply irrational regimes, and then cleanse your mind of all the cheap sentimental cliches and political spins that are constantly gushed by the media. You have to look at reality.

Quote:

Fact 1. We were attacked on 9/11/01, and it was not a one-time threat.

Fact 2. Nuclear weapons are spreading.

Fact 3. Europe, the United States, China, India, Japan are utterly dependent on a free flow of Middle Eastern oil at market prices

Fact 4. In the real world --- not the wishful world of pundits --- you don't know the future

Quote:

Question: Why not just stay and fix Afghanistan?
The Democrats think that's a brilliant strategy, which should make all of us very suspicious.
Well, here are three reasons why Afghanistan was not enough:

a. Afghanistan has never been a modern state, with real control over its countryside. It's a coalition of tribes and warlords.

b. Al Qaida is a quicksilver enemy, flowing from place to place.

c. How do you catch Al Qaida and its ilk, given that they were (and are) constantly threatening to pull another 9/11?

d. Iraq was that trap. That is why Afghanistan was not enough. Iraq was already targeted by 16 UN Security Council resolutions, the international stage was set, and the Bush Administration seized that opportunity. Was it opportunistic? Where there any other alternatives? Yes on the first, No on the second

***IcyPatriot*** · 03-23-2008, 08:10 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...s_on_iraq.html

Quote:

Quote:
So the liberal story is that the Iraq War was all a big blooper, Bush's Folly.

Well, look at the consequences of believing that.

1. Saddam would still be in power, and we would still not know if he had nukes.

2. Al Qaida would not have been trapped in a killing field, after 9/11.

3. Lybia would have had nukes, or very close to it, and be ready to spread it around.

4. Iran would not be surrounded by American-dominated countries.

5. In terms of human rights, 50 million victims of Saddam and the Taliban would still be oppressed.

6. The oil supply would be at risk from both Saddam, Iran, and Al Qaeda (which has threatened terror bombings against it).

7. The United States would look like a gutless paper tiger, afraid of risking lives, just as Bin Laden said. UBL is right about Europe, and he is right about the American Left. They really are paper tigers, like Jimmy Carter

The Bottom Line: The Bush Administration took a rational geostrategic action. It was as painful as any war. Wonderful young people were lost. It was terrible.

The alternative would have led to more warfare, as countries like China began to actively defend their oil supplies. It would have made us more vulnerable to Al Qaida and all its hundreds of would-be Al Qaida imitators across the Muslim world. It would have put A'jad's sword at our throats --- more even than it is now.

Were mistakes made? Are human beings flawed and imperfect? Could we have run it better if we'd only known what we think we know today? Yes, and yes, and yes

.......................

otis p. driftwood · 03-23-2008, 08:13 PM

Good posts.

***IcyPatriot*** · 03-23-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.paul

Good posts.

Get lucky once in a while ... that site is good ... mostly opinions of others. Sometimes they are too technical to post ... rather mundane very issue specific boring stuff ... other times there are some good articles. Because they are others opinions they make for good discussions.

***DarrylS*** · 03-24-2008, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Rational wars are waged for strategic goals, and yes, Iraq is a rational war. But to understand geopolitical strategy you have to look at a map, understand our life-and-death dependence on oil, face the spread of mass-killing weapons, watch the rise of deeply irrational regimes, and then cleanse your mind of all the cheap sentimental cliches and political spins that are constantly gushed by the media. You have to look at reality.

Fact 3. Europe, the United States, China, India, Japan are utterly dependent on a free flow of Middle Eastern oil at market prices

6. The oil supply would be at risk from both Saddam, Iran, and Al Qaeda (which has threatened terror bombings against it).

Not sure I understand or have ever seen the term rational war.. rational implies that it was thought out and planned, rather than reacting to stimulation that is a threat to America.. IMO war can never be rational..

The comments about Libya having nukes is pure speculation, and not based on anything except I think it might happen.

Also find it interesting that this author, raises the whole reason we are there is for the oil on three separate occasions.. usually that is a contested point by the right, as they claim we are there to help the oppressed Iraqi people, destroy WMD's and to stop a brutal dictator.. if it is admitted to be about protecting our oil supplies that is interesting, but not a very good reason to go to war, destroy a country and hundreds of thousands killed in collateral damage. Remember the slogan, "How did our oil get under your sand??"..

otis p. driftwood · 03-24-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
A.Q. Khan
A.Q. Khan & Libya
References

*
* "Probe of Libya Finds Nuclear Black Market" By Joby Warrick and Peter Slevin, Washington Post, January 24, 2004; Page A01

A.Q. Khan & Libya

By April 2000, the UK Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) was noting that there was an evolving, and as yet incomplete, picture of the supply of uranium enrichment equipment to at least one customer in the Middle East, thought to be Libya, and evidence linking this activity to Khan. By September 2000, it was pointing out that the network was expanding to mass-produce components for large-scale centrifuge cascades. During 2001,the JIC continued to track AQ Khan ’s activities. An assessment by the UK in March 2002 pulled together all the strands of intelligence on AQ Khan then available. The conclusions showed the wide spread of Khan’s network and that he had moved his base outside Pakistan and was now controlling it through his associates in Dubai. At the same time, intelligence showed that he had now established his own production facilities, in Malaysia. He was being helped in his activities by a network of associates and suppliers, including BSA Tahir (a Sri Lankan businessman operating out of Dubai). By July 2002,the JIC had concluded that AQ Khan ’s network was central to all aspects of the Libyan nuclear weapons program.

Evidence uncovered as part of Libya's decision to 'come clean' on its weapons of mass destruction programs show further implication on the part of A.Q. Khan and, possibly, Pakistan. Indeed, Libya's uranium enrichment program appeared reliant on both G-1 and G-2 (P-1 and P-2) centrifuge designs; material for which it reportedly paid substantial sums for.

Started in the early 1990s, Libya’s disclosed uranium enrichment program appears based on both Pakistan’s G-1 and G-2 centrifuge designs, with some of the centrifuges having been flown there from Pakistan.

A.Q. Khan has confessed to meeting with Libyans in Istanbul, Turkey, in 1990.

Libya was also reportedly provided by the Pakistanis with additional information on how and where to acquire additional components for this program. Using at first the G-1 design, it later upgraded to the G-2 model, which Libya is reported to have had set up a small number of. These were being manufactured at a facility in Malaysia arranged through Khan's netowrk. Components from that plant which were intercepted by the United States aboard a German-registered ship on their way to Libya in October 2003 after having been spotted whilst going through the Suez Canal.

Schematics for both G-2 centrifuges and bombs were reported to be among documentation given to both the United States and the IAEA by Libya.

The supply chain for Libya's program relied on Libyans contacting Pakistanis who would in turn contact middlemn. These would contact suppliers for the desired components which, once completed would then be shipped to the Persian Gulf emirate of Dubai, from where they would be delivered to Libya. Items thus procured ranges from high-strength metals and vaccuum systems to electronics.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...khan-libya.htm

***patsfan13*** · 03-24-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GJAJ15

Not sure I understand or have ever seen the term rational war.. rational implies that it was thought out and planned, rather than reacting to stimulation that is a threat to America.. IMO war can never be rational..

The comments about Libya having nukes is pure speculation, and not based on anything except I think it might happen.

Also find it interesting that this author, raises the whole reason we are there is for the oil on three separate occasions.. usually that is a contested point by the right, as they claim we are there to help the oppressed Iraqi people, destroy WMD's and to stop a brutal dictator.. if it is admitted to be about protecting our oil supplies that is interesting, but not a very good reason to go to war, destroy a country and hundreds of thousands killed in collateral damage. Remember the slogan, "How did our oil get under your sand??"..

What are you talking about??? LIbya publicly admitted to have a nuke program and allowed the UN to collect the eq in the wake of the Iraq invasion. You were unaware of that????

The big shock was that no one knew they had the program and how far along it was.

wistahpatsfan · 03-24-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.paul

Good posts.

Really?
You think that 10th-grade essay was good? Sure, it's good if you're a cheerleader and have already drunk the White House Kool-Aid to your heart's content.

Where do I begin? How about the first "fact"....

Fact 1. We were attacked on 9/11/01, and it was not a one-time threat.
OK.....

Fact 2. Nuclear weapons are spreading.
Nuclear weapons are spreading because we allow it to happen. Now we have no choice but to allow it because no one will listen to us when we pretend to be friendly. And who are we to say that Israel can have nukes but Syria cannot? That’s idiotic.

Fact 3. Europe, the United States, China, India, Japan are utterly dependent on a free flow of Middle Eastern oil at market prices
Only because we are utterly dependent on oil to begin with. There is no effort on the US government’s part to reduce demand or develop new renewable energy sources. In fact the reverse is occurring, with fuel efficiency standards becoming stagnant and official resistance to funding large research projects aimed at new source development.

China needs oil? Europe? Japan? Why don’t they go get it? Why pretend the welfare of anyone other than US oil Corps is important? As we approach the end of oil, we will be at war with one or all of these countries if we haven’t freed ourselves of the addiction to oil.

Fact 4. In the real world --- not the wishful world of pundits --- you don't know the future
Brilliant! I was not aware of that! Wow!

Question: Why not just stay and fix Afghanistan?
The Democrats think that's a brilliant strategy, which should make all of us very suspicious. Well, here are three reasons why Afghanistan was not enough:
Suspicious of what?

a. Afghanistan has never been a modern state, with real control over its countryside. It's a coalition of tribes and warlords.
Brilliant! I was not aware of that! Wow!

b. Al Qaida is a quicksilver enemy, flowing from place to place.
Brilliant! I was not aware of that! Wow!

c. How do you catch Al Qaida and its ilk, given that they were (and are) constantly threatening to pull another 9/11?
What has that got to do with catching and killing Al Quida? OK, so they threaten to pull another 9/11, so that means what…we stop trying to find them and kill them?

d. Iraq was that trap. That is why Afghanistan was not enough. Iraq was already targeted by 16 UN Security Council resolutions, the international stage was set, and the Bush Administration seized that opportunity. Was it opportunistic? Where there any other alternatives? Yes on the first, No on the second
Who says there weren’t alternatives? How about this one? Invade Afghanistan and western Pakistan, seal the perimeter, and either starve them out or firebomb and nuke the living hell out of them until they are all dead.

So the liberal story is that the Iraq War was all a big blooper, Bush's Folly.

Well, look at the consequences of believing that.

1. Saddam would still be in power, and we would still not know if he had nukes.
So what? We don’t know for sure if Argentina or Brazil has nukes. Why don’t we invade them, too?

2. Al Qaida would not have been trapped in a killing field, after 9/11.
Al Quida is not “trapped in a killing field”. They are still growing and recruiting. Bin Ladin is still at large. REMEMBER BIN LADIN? Funny how his name is not mentioned.

3. Lybia would have had nukes, or very close to it, and be ready to spread it around.
Who says? What a load of crap. As if we wouldn’t have been able to deal with Libya. OOOOOOH! SCARY!

4. Iran would not be surrounded by American-dominated countries.
American-dominated countries?
Look at a map, fool! Turkmenistan and Pakistan? KofSA? Dominated by US? Azerbijan? Russia? China, and India are one country away.

5. In terms of human rights, 50 million victims of Saddam and the Taliban would still be oppressed.
They were before 9/11, too. Mostly because we supported them and Bin Ladin for kicking out the Russians. Somehow we were outraged by the Russians there, but us being in Iraq is different. Makes sense to me!

6. The oil supply would be at risk from both Saddam, Iran, and Al Qaeda (which has threatened terror bombings against it).
And as we all know, we now control the supply of oil…not OPEC

7. The United States would look like a gutless paper tiger, afraid of risking lives, just as Bin Laden said. UBL is right about Europe, and he is right about the American Left. They really are paper tigers, like Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter? You mean Ronald Reagan, right…you know, the guy who “cut-and-ran from Beirut? What an idiotic pair of sentences! Afraid of risking whose lives? The old men in Congress and the White House? Your life? So Bin Ladin says we’re afraid and we have to go and prove to him that we’re not. Isn’t that for high-school jocks?

The Bottom Line: The Bush Administration took a rational geostrategic action. It was as painful as any war. Wonderful young people were lost. It was terrible.
As painful as any war? Has this moron ever read a book about WWII or Viet Nam? Jeeziz! The war between the Hutus and Tutsies was worse!

The alternative would have led to more warfare, as countries like China began to actively defend their oil supplies. It would have made us more vulnerable to Al Qaida and all its hundreds of would-be Al Qaida imitators across the Muslim world. It would have put A'jad's sword at our throats --- more even than it is now.
More groundless speculation! A great basis to send our best kids off to die. Not only are there more Al Quida, but there’s AQ imitators, too! Lions and tigers and bears….OH MY!

Were mistakes made? Are human beings flawed and imperfect? Could we have run it better if we'd only known what we think we know today? Yes, and yes, and yes

***patsfan13*** · 03-24-2008, 09:03 AM

Hey Whista you fancy yourself a Libetarian. Are you aware where a government has developed a new source of energy and directed the market successfully?

wistahpatsfan · 03-24-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Hey Whista you fancy yourself a Libetarian. Are you aware where a government has developed a new source of energy and directed the market successfully?

Not in the US. It's being done now in China with the construction of mega-dams and nuclear plants. Iceland is going to be energy self-sufficient by 2015 using geothermal and hydrogen. It can happen.
The US has done great things in the past, like mobilizing for WWII and the Apollo project. I'm a Libertarian, but I don't agree with every single party plank. I tend to think for myself. I don't believe everything I'm told, but the Libertarian Party most closely reflects my philosophy of small government except in certain cases where it's needed. Roads and ports are built by the government, but some ultra hard-core Libertarians don't even want the gov't to do that much. When it comes to national security, and I think the end of oil is that, the government must at least enable the process of innovation and new technology development to exist.