CIA:Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]Skystud wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

I would venture I have a much better handle on the situation than you do.

Blaming German aggression on the Treaty of Versailles is overly simplistic.

Then why didn’t we invade cuba?, Libya? The costs of going to war unilaterally, far out weigh the benefits … as we are finding out. Going to war with every country with a dictator and going it alone is simplistic. Selling that dictator wmd and then invading him because he may or may not still have them is entrapment and telling our people at home that we are doing so to spread freedom is a joke. [/quote]

What the fuck are you talking about? You are all over the map.

We did invade Cuba but JFK half assed it. We bombed Libya and he stopped blatantly supporting terrorism so there was no urgent to depose him.

Reagan diod not fully recognize the dangers of radical Islam.

We invaded Iraq in an effort to remake the entire middle east. You guys that don’t understand that seem really ignorant. You should be embarrassed by your low level of understanding, instead you brag about it!

222

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Bush did no research, and went in with no plan, I repeat ZERO plan. How do you get worse than that? Then after the initial idealogy was proven wrong, still persisted with the same failed tactics while showing absolute disinterest in the results.
…

This just proves how crazy some of you guys really are.

One minute you complain the Bush planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11 and the next minute you say he had no plan.

Then you say he shows no interest in the war when he is about the only politician that does. Everyone else wants to pull out.

We cannot take you seriously but you are good for a laugh.

Uhhgh…the density…

complained Bush had a plan to invade…

This isn’t a “complaint”.
Pointing out neocons desire to invade Iraq pre 9/11 is just called reading.
(Although I don’t know if its accurate to say Bush had a “plan to invade”. I didn’t say that…so kind of a straw man here)
That Bush went into Iraq with no plan (no phase IV) to win post invasion, is again just a matter of reading.(or watching the news).

That Bush isn’t interested, is obviously demonstrated by “stay the course”. Since victory in Iraq or afghanistan is essentially based on boots on the ground…you can see that stay the course does little to insure victory…

regardless of the fact that we will be soon redeploying in some fashion along with dividing the country more formally (only the sunnis object obviously)—“stay the course” is just what they’ll say till Baker can give them some cover.(Note: this means american lives just don’t matter to republicans advocating “stay the course” until november).[/quote]

You are a dumbass. Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is not about American boots on the ground. The Iraqi and Afghani people must win it themselves.

If we had one million soldiers over there you would say we had too many.

You are a partisan phony with no opinions of your own.

223

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

You are a dumbass. Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is not about American boots on the ground. The Iraqi and Afghani people must win it themselves.

If we had one million soldiers over there you would say we had too many.

You are a partisan phony with no opinions of your own. [/quote]

I’ll let our current situation speak for itself as to wheather our policy is right or not. It should be obvious. You say I am all over the place. I was only trying to explain that we can’t fight every country we want, any time we want, for any reason we want. Any move we make on the national stage is parried by the other countries that do not like us or any of our treaties. That is why n.korea and iran are acting like they are. I can tell you that if we went to war with Iran right now, we would most likely be at war with Russia, China and maybe Venezuela. Is this what you want?
Do you want to go to war with every country we don’t like?

224

[quote]Skystud wrote:
… I can tell you that if we went to war with Iran right now, we would most likely be at war with Russia, China and maybe Venezuela. …
[/quote]

Do you seriously believe this?

225

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

I think the best option might be a strong-form federal system, a la Switzerland, that gives the three sections of the country a lot of independence but forces revenue sharing and mixing of the population in the armed forces and a national police force.

FightinIrish26 wrote:
If you think that they can or will cooperate that much with each other, than you are far more idealistic than I thought.

It sounds good, but I don’t know that they will ever work together. Hell, they can’t even stop killing each other for a week.[/quote]

Apparently so is Hillary Clinton.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_10_08-2006_10_14.shtml#1160706963

Oil and Iraqi Federalism - Where Hillary Clinton and I agree:

In this recent interview, Hillary Clinton (a figure with whom I rarely agree on much else) endorses an idea that I have argued for myself (see here ( The Volokh Conspiracy - Decentralized Federalism in Iraq: ), here ( The Volokh Conspiracy - - ), and here ( http://www.iraqipapers.net/forthedition/foureng/fedfoureng.htm )): a federalist system for Iraq under which each individual Iraqi citizen gets to have a share of the nation’s oil wealth:

(Quoting Hillary Clinton interview)

[i] I recommended in '03 ? and this went all the way up to [Vice President] Cheney, who shot it down ? I recommended, while we were in charge, to create an oil trust, where you would basically say to every Iraqi, “You know what, you have a stake in this. And you can get some payment out of the oil revenue.”

I thought it would be something that could demonstrate clearly that we were not on the side of the oil companies, we were not on the side of the ruling elites ? we were on the side of the Iraqi people.

Nothing like that has been done. The Sunnis will not quit fighting until they are assured they're going to get some share of the oil revenue. Otherwise, the South goes to Shiites, the North goes to Kurds, and these people who have dominated not just Iraq, but the region historically, will be shamed and will be rendered second-class citizens.[/i]

As I argued in my previous writings on the subject (linked above), an oil fund that gives shares to all Iraqi citizens is a good way to ensure that decentralized federalism - a necessary part of any effective political settlement in Iraq - can be reconciled with the need to ensure that majority Sunni regions have access to the nation’s oil wealth; there are few if any oil deposits in the “Sunni triangle” region where most Iraqi insurgents are based.

Clinton’s comments, however, point to another advantage of this approach: the possibility that it would give ordinary Iraqis a greater stake in the new political system and therefore a new reason to oppose Baathist and radical Islamists who would seek to overthrow it (and thereby take away the new oil rights).

As to whether Sen. Clinton really did urge the Bush Administration to adopt this approach back in 2003, I have no way of knowing. However, a number of people did try to persuade the Administration to embrace it at the time, including my colleague and Nobel Prize-winning economist Vernon Smith ( Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal ). Unfortunately, their advice was not followed.

Now that Iraqi politicians in the new government have gotten control of the oil, it will be more difficult to get them to give it up than it would have been to create an oil trust back in 2003 when the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority still ruled Iraq. However, the United States might still be able to force the adoption of this crucial reform by using the leverage created by its massive aid payments to Iraq. If Iraqi politicians want to continue to benefit from large-scale US assistance, it is perfectly reasonable for us to require them to adopt a reform that enables their people to own a share of the nation’s wealth and gives Iraqis of all ethnic and religious backgrounds an important incentive to oppose the insurgency.

226

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

We invaded Iraq in an effort to remake the entire middle east. You guys that don’t understand that seem really ignorant. You should be embarrassed by your low level of understanding, instead you brag about it![/quote]

It’s not that we don’t understand, it’s more that this predictably wouldn’t have worked(obviously borne out now). The idealogues in the admin made horrible strategic decisions based on unicorns and fairies. The only thing embarassing now would be that you initially believed this line of reasoning. Now that it has been utterly debunked (the hard way) it will be tough for some to swallow their pride and say I got punked, but you can do it Zap!

227

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

I think the best option might be a strong-form federal system, a la Switzerland, that gives the three sections of the country a lot of independence but forces revenue sharing and mixing of the population in the armed forces and a national police force.

FightinIrish26 wrote:
If you think that they can or will cooperate that much with each other, than you are far more idealistic than I thought.

It sounds good, but I don’t know that they will ever work together. Hell, they can’t even stop killing each other for a week.

Apparently so is Hillary Clinton.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_10_08-2006_10_14.shtml#1160706963

Oil and Iraqi Federalism - Where Hillary Clinton and I agree:

In this recent interview, Hillary Clinton (a figure with whom I rarely agree on much else) endorses an idea that I have argued for myself (see here ( The Volokh Conspiracy - Decentralized Federalism in Iraq: ), here ( The Volokh Conspiracy - - ), and here ( http://www.iraqipapers.net/forthedition/foureng/fedfoureng.htm )): a federalist system for Iraq under which each individual Iraqi citizen gets to have a share of the nation’s oil wealth:

(Quoting Hillary Clinton interview)

[i] I recommended in '03 ? and this went all the way up to [Vice President] Cheney, who shot it down ? I recommended, while we were in charge, to create an oil trust, where you would basically say to every Iraqi, “You know what, you have a stake in this. And you can get some payment out of the oil revenue.”

I thought it would be something that could demonstrate clearly that we were not on the side of the oil companies, we were not on the side of the ruling elites ? we were on the side of the Iraqi people.

Nothing like that has been done. The Sunnis will not quit fighting until they are assured they're going to get some share of the oil revenue. Otherwise, the South goes to Shiites, the North goes to Kurds, and these people who have dominated not just Iraq, but the region historically, will be shamed and will be rendered second-class citizens.[/i]

As I argued in my previous writings on the subject (linked above), an oil fund that gives shares to all Iraqi citizens is a good way to ensure that decentralized federalism - a necessary part of any effective political settlement in Iraq - can be reconciled with the need to ensure that majority Sunni regions have access to the nation’s oil wealth; there are few if any oil deposits in the “Sunni triangle” region where most Iraqi insurgents are based.

Clinton’s comments, however, point to another advantage of this approach: the possibility that it would give ordinary Iraqis a greater stake in the new political system and therefore a new reason to oppose Baathist and radical Islamists who would seek to overthrow it (and thereby take away the new oil rights).

As to whether Sen. Clinton really did urge the Bush Administration to adopt this approach back in 2003, I have no way of knowing. However, a number of people did try to persuade the Administration to embrace it at the time, including my colleague and Nobel Prize-winning economist Vernon Smith ( Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal ). Unfortunately, their advice was not followed.

Now that Iraqi politicians in the new government have gotten control of the oil, it will be more difficult to get them to give it up than it would have been to create an oil trust back in 2003 when the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority still ruled Iraq. However, the United States might still be able to force the adoption of this crucial reform by using the leverage created by its massive aid payments to Iraq. If Iraqi politicians want to continue to benefit from large-scale US assistance, it is perfectly reasonable for us to require them to adopt a reform that enables their people to own a share of the nation’s wealth and gives Iraqis of all ethnic and religious backgrounds an important incentive to oppose the insurgency.
[/quote]

Something like this is going to happen, and for the most part is already happening. And the sunnis are REALLY not liking it, somehow we have to get them some percentage of that oil, and I’d think(like your article says) we’ve got some leverage to do it…

I just hope we don’t have to wait till 08, that would be tragic.