Geopolitics is fun! (Iran on a precipice edition) - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Geopolitics is fun! (Iran on a precipice edition)

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby JTWood » Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:37 am

RugbyD wrote:
JTWood wrote:You two are cute together. When are you going to start dating? ;-7 :-D

once you give up your addiction to H2H and come play Roto!

touche

;-D
Image
JTWood
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 11508
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Unincorporated Heaven

Postby Coppermine » Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:26 am

Madison wrote:All they know is that it took too long to go in because of the public outcry, Bush played political games because of the outcry, and we didn't get Bin Laden.


Jumping back a little Madison, you made a good post and an excellent case for the average "i'm going to think what I think and disregard the facts" average American viewpoint on this was, but we began our air campaign (and I did have to look this up for the exact date) on October 7, 2001. That is less than 1 month after the 9/11 attacks.

In less than a month the US mobilized much of their air force and Navy to Afghanistan for this campaign. Now, for the life of me, I can't really recall and opposition to going after Bin Laden, the Taliban and Afghanistan. In fact, I'm personally avid anti-Iraq-war, but what we did in Afghanistan was a direct result of the attacks on us. I don't recall there being any opposition; in fact, from what I do recall, we began bombing the Taliban before it was brought to public knowledge that we were going to do so. It was a sneak attack.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby AcidRock23 » Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:57 am

Jawbreaker supports Coppermine on this. It is a good read, an account by the CIA guy who got called out of almost retirement to head to Afghanistan about a month after 9-11 and the challenges of putting together that operation (including having diarrhea into liter bottles... 8-o ) and he suggests that the squeamishness didn't have a lot to do w/ the domestic complaints about the war but more with superstructural uncertainty about who to support.

I'm not opposed to getting rid of the Taliban or getting rid of Saddam but I don't think that the war was prosecuted correctly. Fiasco goes into this in a great deal of detail, about how the staff officers responsible for planning the war felt maybe 3-500,000 troops would be required and Rumsfeld/ Wolfowitz 'analyzed' (sic) the situation and mandated that the army were spoiled and should be able to get 'er done w/ 100,000 or so troops.

In the end, our military can stand proud that they don't lose battles but, as in Vietnam, they were 'stabbed in the back' by politicians refusing to allow the military to operate effectively. Because the domestic political concerns about selling the war as a piece of cake trumped the military concerns about occupying a large country split into warring factions, we have wasted the money spent and will have little to show for it. Other than whacking Saddam which I have to believe could have been done quite a bit cheaper somehow.
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby Coppermine » Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:08 am

Dave Mustaine wrote:Peace sells... but who's buyin?
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby Madison » Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:58 am

The Big Train wrote:I guess I am offering an alternative explanation for the motives and goals of U.S. foreign policy in terms of the situation in Iraq and, as you noted, Afghanistan.


You're offering a well thought out and solid opinion with plenty to back it up. It's appreciated! ;-D

[quote="The Big Train"]I guess this is a matter of recollection. I would suggest that contrary to your view that “The country cried out about all the innocent people over there who would die if he did [invade],â€
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby AcidRock23 » Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:20 pm

Madison wrote: As to the outcry, maybe it's because I know tons of soldiers (both active and retired), but I remember sitting around with them and talking about all the public outcry and how ridiculous it was. How we needed to already be in Afghanistan bombing, but no, Bush was too busy playing political games and listening to those who screamed the loudest, instead of doing what needed to be done to protect our country. :-P


According to the Jawbreaker dude, who was in Afghanistan outside of the Taliban lines waiting to call in the B52s while the outcry was going on, the delay was because the people in our gov't were very squeamish about getting cooties from the Northern Alliance. By projecting our power there, we would basically choose which group of Afghans would 'win' and we didn't want to help the wrong side too much.
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby Coppermine » Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:42 pm

Well, maybe it was a military thing... and perhaps we did give the Taliban an ultimatum first, but there was no resolution to declare war on Afghanistan. There's also a lot more diplamatic efforts behind it, some of which I read in the 9/11 Commission report. For instance, prior to 9/11, the Pakistan government continually refused to assist us in tracking down terrorists (are we calling them "enemy combatants" now? Talk about over-PC). Immediately after 9/11, Richard Clarke went to Pakistan and gave them an ultimatum; help us or die... well, not quite like that, but this time we meant business. That was the perfect first step... you can't just get attacked, assume it was Bin Laden, then go blow up a country. America doesn't work like that and it's too bad so many think it should.

In my opinion, things started off well with Afghanistan. I think we handled it with precision and force, and we drove the Taliban out of power without nearly the type of resistance we faced in Iraq. Perhaps that's part of the Bush Administration naivety going into Iraq was how relatively easy it was to topple the Taliban.

Of course it's viewed as, and should be considered, a failure because didn't get Bin Laden... and we never hear about him anymore either which pisses me off even more. Where's that post-9/11 president Bush who talked tough and vowed "dead or alive." Oh, right...

In any case, I still can't find any evidence of opposition to Operation Enduring Freedom or that being the cause of it's delay; that doesn't necessary mean there wasn't opposition, and I certainly wasn't privy to the opinions of service men and women that were Madison. But the only delay, even if it was about 3 weeks which is a monumentally short delay to mobilize a huge strike force, was likely due to diplomacy... something we haven't been doing enough of lately.

Bin Laden went into hiding long before those planes hit those buildings. He was ready for a backlash; if he wasn't, he would have been caught by now regardless. The problem is that he would have been caught by now, hopefully anyway, if we had more resources to devote to the REAL war on terror.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby Chrisy Moltisanti » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:38 pm

Well now all the brainwashed ones can finally believe it too:

Guardian wrote:Pentagon unit defied CIA advice to justify Iraq war


'Alternative' agency set up to link Saddam to al-Qaida
· Mainstream intelligence was cast aside, Senate told
.


Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian



An "alternative intelligence" unit operating at the Pentagon in the run-up to the war on Iraq was dedicated to establishing a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, even though the CIA was unconvinced of such a connection, the US Senate was told yesterday.

A report presented to the armed services committee by the Pentagon's inspector general, Thomas Gimble, exposes the Bush administration to new charges of manipulating intelligence to make its case for going to war against Saddam nearly four years ago.

Mr Gimble described a unit called the Office for Special Plans, authorised by then Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and overseen by the former policy chief Douglas Feith, to review raw intelligence on Iraq. The main focus of the unit was establishing a link between Saddam and al-Qaida - going against the consensus in the intelligence community that the Iraqi leader had nothing to do with the September 11 2001 terror attacks.
Link
Chrisy Moltisanti
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1536
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: 6 feet under

Postby statsman88 » Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:42 pm

Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:Well now all the brainwashed ones can finally believe it too:

Guardian wrote:Pentagon unit defied CIA advice to justify Iraq war


'Alternative' agency set up to link Saddam to al-Qaida
· Mainstream intelligence was cast aside, Senate told
.


Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian



An "alternative intelligence" unit operating at the Pentagon in the run-up to the war on Iraq was dedicated to establishing a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, even though the CIA was unconvinced of such a connection, the US Senate was told yesterday.

A report presented to the armed services committee by the Pentagon's inspector general, Thomas Gimble, exposes the Bush administration to new charges of manipulating intelligence to make its case for going to war against Saddam nearly four years ago.

Mr Gimble described a unit called the Office for Special Plans, authorised by then Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and overseen by the former policy chief Douglas Feith, to review raw intelligence on Iraq. The main focus of the unit was establishing a link between Saddam and al-Qaida - going against the consensus in the intelligence community that the Iraqi leader had nothing to do with the September 11 2001 attacks.
Link


Interesting stuff Chrisy, I'm posting over here on the baseball side because I know people over here will actually talk about this ;-D

Ive heard stories about this for a bit, but it seems that is it sorta confirmed (or as confirmed as our messed up media will get. Its so hard to decipher stories into fact vs. truth. ) so what is America going to do about it? Probably nothing. I would imagine most Americans are happy that Saddam is no longer in power, (although I would argue it will make Iraq and America's involvement there worse now that he's gone), so I really don't see any action being taken over this story that he went after Saddam even if it was kinda cheap the way he did it.
"Let's Keep The Friendly Confines Friendly" - Ernie Banks
statsman88
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 727
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball

Postby Coppermine » Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:50 pm

statsman88 wrote:
Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:Well now all the brainwashed ones can finally believe it too:

Guardian wrote:Pentagon unit defied CIA advice to justify Iraq war


'Alternative' agency set up to link Saddam to al-Qaida
· Mainstream intelligence was cast aside, Senate told
.


Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian



An "alternative intelligence" unit operating at the Pentagon in the run-up to the war on Iraq was dedicated to establishing a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, even though the CIA was unconvinced of such a connection, the US Senate was told yesterday.

A report presented to the armed services committee by the Pentagon's inspector general, Thomas Gimble, exposes the Bush administration to new charges of manipulating intelligence to make its case for going to war against Saddam nearly four years ago.

Mr Gimble described a unit called the Office for Special Plans, authorised by then Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and overseen by the former policy chief Douglas Feith, to review raw intelligence on Iraq. The main focus of the unit was establishing a link between Saddam and al-Qaida - going against the consensus in the intelligence community that the Iraqi leader had nothing to do with the September 11 2001 attacks.
Link


Interesting stuff Chrisy, I'm posting over here on the baseball side because I know people over here will actually talk about this ;-D

Ive heard stories about this for a bit, but it seems that is it sorta confirmed (or as confirmed as our messed up media will get. Its so hard to decipher stories into fact vs. truth. ) so what is America going to do about it? Probably nothing. I would imagine most Americans are happy that Saddam is no longer in power, (although I would argue it will make Iraq and America's involvement there worse now that he's gone), so I really don't see any action being taken over this story that he went after Saddam even if it was kinda cheap the way he did it.


I can honestly say that I am unhappy Saddam is no longer in power. I can't look at this as simplistically as the world has been ridden of a tyrant. Saddam was a stabilizing force in the chaotic middle east, particularly to the other radical power, Iran's Ahmadinejad. Now, not only is Iraq the 'breeding ground' for terrorism it previously was not, but Iran's power has increased dramatically on the world stage and has risen as legitimate threat to middle eastern stability.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Aug. 20
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Texas at Miami
(12:40 pm)
indoors
Seattle at Philadelphia
(1:05 pm)
Toronto at Milwaukee
(2:10 pm)
NY Mets at Oakland
(3:35 pm)
Houston at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
Atlanta at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
Arizona at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Detroit at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
LA Angels at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Cincinnati at St. Louis
(7:15 pm)
San Francisco at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
Baltimore at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Cleveland at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
Kansas City at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
San Diego at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact