>> ^Lodurr:
Their goal isn't a Taliban-controlled world, but an Islamic theocratic-controlled one, and to further that goal they don't need an army or air force. All they needed were a few pilots and some box cutters to inch us closer to that "holy war."

The thing the Taliban wants most of all is for people to leave Afghanistan alone.

And "Al Qaeda" is really a little pipe-dream boogie man compliments of the CIA.

The middle east, probably more than anything, just wants a major reduction of western influence and interdiction in their countries.

Three countries needed 9/11 more than anything:

1) America, for a good reason to invade Iraq,
2) Saudi Arabia, for a good reason to get US troops off their soil, and
3) Israel, to provide a long-term buffer-zone of US troops and weaponry between them and Iran.

9/11 was an inside job, and the three countries above are the prime suspects.

He didn't do too bad.

I think the consensus of most of the discussion was balanced against him, and had he someone more sympathetic to his point of view, say Garafalo or Whoopie Goldberg, he would have done better.

Yes, Rushdie is a formidable brain. Maher tried to provide balance. Hitch was pretty much a prick and clearly drunk off his ass, and there were several points he made that were either dubiously absent of relative information, or clearly biased and condescending.

Orders were given to our US troops to let Osama bin Laden escape. Hitch knows that.

Salient points that apply to the Middle East policy as a whole.

I agree that the US has done a poor job of reading the human terrain of Iraq and Afghanistan because the mission was always formulated as force elimination not reconstruction.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5366677

I remember reading several books on Iraq and one thread passed through all of them, US troops would complain that higher command did not give them the information about culture necessary to interact with the populace, or when it was given it was hopelessly racist and based on works from the early 20th century. One common misrepresentation was that Arabs all wished only for death and are all habitual liars. Not a great framework to work off when invading a whole nation.

Damn, this is fun:

An officer, who was a Central American COS and later Deputy Chief of LA Division in the late 1980s, says that Honduras was not an attractive location for drug traffickers during this time period.... He says that, if CIA or other U.S. Government organizations operating in Honduras had acquired information indicating that the Contras were engaged in narcotics trafficking, it would have--or should have--been disseminated in intelligence reports. He makes clear that CIA was not alone in its intelligence collection and reporting efforts in Honduras and that large amounts of intelligence were collected by other U.S. Government agencies. Reports of Contra drug trafficking, he says, would probably have been a topic of discussion at the Interagency Working Group that was run by DoS official Elliott Abrams.

---

Well, then... if Abrams said it was all kosher then hey! We can trust him.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/cocaine/contra-story/findings.html

Oooh wait a minute:
"...Abrams entered into a plea agreement that ultimately led to a conviction without imprisonment on two misdemeanors of withholding information from Congress."

Hmm.. well, now I just dunno what to think... perhaps he is only a liar on certain things. I guess we can just not worry about it. I don't.

Here's a funny conversation I imagined:

Oh hey I heard Saddam is going to launch an attack with WMD's... lets go build up our troops prior to invasion within the range of the SCUDS we KNOW he has that could be fitted with these WMD's.... Why just use airstrikes which prevent potential massive US troop casualties.. ....oh, he doesnt actually have WMDS? haha good one! you had me worried. now it makes sense. good on ya's lad. now lets get a drink and count our no bid contracts!

PS: Criminal behavior is bad.

Thought you might be interested in this:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Massive-Baghdad-Protest-Over-US-Troops-Agreement

cool. good q's, runner.

> Do we pursue bin Laden in any ongoing capacity?

fuck yes! and to a greater capacity than would appear to have been ongoing.
assuming he hasn't simply died of renal failure, i'd suppose that's best accomplished by a seal team or a cruise missile.

> Do we concern ourselves with nuclear proliferation? If so, what actions do we take to prevent it?

sure. but we don't have US troops in 130 other countries, to deter nuclear proliferation there.
personally, i'd start by reducing our own stockpile, down to merely enough to destroy the planet 17 times over. that oughta' make everyone a little less nervous about the need for their own.

> Do we honor treaties like NATO?

most libertarians advise against the idea of signing treaties at all. if i'm a reasonably friendly guy who minds my own business, you won't feel threatened by me. you won't need me to sign a piece of paper that promises it, and i won't need one from you.
and think about what it means to everyone else, if we do sign. all our neighbors, that we haven't promised not to attack...

> Do we continue to sell arms to other countries?

nope. DoD weapon contracts should be sealed bids, from US manufacturers, for exclusive manufacturing rights, that will not be extended to any other nation.

that's the quick versions. what would your answers be?

You are being distracted... a time table has -not- been set. Think people.. the elections are coming up. You are being fed and you are eating it up. Put simply, the UN resolution granting the US rights to remain in Iraq to maintain stability is expiring in less than a year. Rather than go through the UN again, the US is forcing the Iraqi government to create their own resolution, allowing US troops to be present through ~2011. This is NOT BINDING. This does NOT guarantee a withdrawal. This does NOT MEAN that US presence will end in 2011. Read the fine print and stop letting corporate media, and the government propaganda feed you. The Neocons (and McCain) WANT to stay in Iraq, as they achieved their goals. This is an oil grab, and the US has grasp on it now. They won't let it go, no matter who you vote for.

Actually what he said was the democratically elected government invited US troops into Iraq. I suppose his theory involves some form of time travel.

You've got to give him credit though, that answer makes more sense than most of the White House's explanations for why the US invaded Iraq.

>> ^charliem:
Wait...what ?
Did he just say the US entrance into Iraq was because the sitting govt. INVITED it ?????
HOLY SHIT!
HOW....HOW DO THESE GUYS GET AIRTIME !???

The mahdi army is waiting for US Troops to start a drawdown. Then guess what, Vietnam again or is it a bit late for that analogy.

>> ^charliem:
This is fucking horrible.
12 US Soldiers dead due to corporate neglegance....someone needs to go to prison.


Actually, I find it far more horrible that they're there because of a lie and the men behind that lie shall never be brought to justice. That lie has cost over 100,000 deaths. Meanwhile, Bush is having such a good time, he feels completely comfortable dancing on television.

The name of the fellow that needs to go to prison is George W. Bush.

Assuming you're a Gandhian pacifist...with no sarcasm meant or implied, I really do think that's a wonderful thing. Whether or not you're religious, you perhaps recognize the only real battle worth winning is with one's self.

Unfortunately there are people in the world who don't care whether or not you're a pacifist, they'll try to run you over whether you fight back or not. It's this other type of person that we have laws and police and armies to defend against.

My view is that war, like government, is a necessary evil.

Your view might be that war is never justified--I don't know for sure.

At this juncture, all I can say is my views of what's right and wrong differ from yours and are equally sincere.

Let the fun continue!






In reply to this comment by MINK:
I sincerely wish I knew what you mean by that. Is it some coded proof that in 2003 everyone knew the war would take years and kill thousands of US troops and there wouldn't be any WMD?

?

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
"All rock and roll is toothless. It's a toothless form." --Pete Townsend

In reply to this comment by MINK:
How's the war going? All over by Christmas as usual?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2748336820080628

>> ^quantumushroom:

Our less than 200,000 US troops would have a hard time staying if the 28 million Iraqis wanted us gone.


They're having an easy time staying?

>> ^quantumushroom:

At least some of these combatants were directly caught on the battlefield, attacking US troops and Iraqi civilians. I suspect there'll be plenty of evidence.


You suspect????

The "battlefield" you are talking about used to be a sovereign nation and had nothing to do with 9/11. Under which part of international law are you claiming moral superiority?

Our less than 200,000 US troops would have a hard time staying if the 28 million Iraqis wanted us gone.


Sherman ravaged the South with 62,000 men while the population of the Confederate states of America was 9.1 million. And that was without any tanks, air support, etc. The North's technological advantage over the South was small, while the USA's technological advantage over Iraqi insurgents is huge.

When I saw "Iraq story buried by US networks" I figured it had to be good news.

There's a total blackout/burial of good news out of Iraq by America's mainstream media, which wants us to lose.


According to this site

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

which is against the war

this sift's numbers are full of crap.


Our less than 200,000 US troops would have a hard time staying if the 28 million Iraqis wanted us gone.