Tags:


Tomorrow
March 14, 2007 9:51 AM   Subscribe

" No matter what happens now the Islamists will have beaten both of the superpowers -- first the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and now the United States in the heart of Islam. The impact of that in Islamic civilization is going to be enormous. We have made bin Laden a prophet: His organizing concept for Al Qaeda was "The Russians are a lot tougher than the Americans. If we can beat the Russians, then we can eventually beat the Americans." "

Rolling Stone assembles a panel of military and history experts on the state, and future, of Iraq.
posted by four panels (113 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite

 
This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country's international standing has been frittered away by people who don't have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.
-- retired four-star General Tony McPeak, who endorsed Bush in 2000 and called Bush's foreign policy a "national disaster" in 2004.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:57 AM on March 14, 2007 [2 favorites]


Ironically, the Neocons misread the fall of the Berlin Wall (and the fall of the USSR) as being the work of Reagan's escalation in military spending, and that by (financially outspending) confronting and not appeasing the Russians, we would eventually prevail. This ignores the role of Afghanistan and the failure of communism as a viable economic model.

So now, we see the supply-side wonks looking at rising Islamic populations and declining caucasian populations, and figure thining the herd may not be a bad idea. Bush summarily gets corralled into thinking that it's our obligation as a unipolar superpower to manage the world, now that there is no bipolar balance of powers.

The end result of his foolishness is that we are losing the war we should have won, losing the war we shouldn't have fought, and have betrayed our military and economic weaknesses to our enemies and rivals. BushCo has put us over the barrell, broken our military, ruined our diplomatic channels, and used 1-party arrangements with our "partners" in the war on terror to create shakey alliances at best.

The absolute best part of all of this is that they will blame the troops, the generals, and the American people for not fighting hard enough and supporting their war.
posted by rzklkng at 10:24 AM on March 14, 2007 [3 favorites]


There cannot be one sane, intelligent, reasonable person (civilian or military) who can look at the situation as it exists today and claim to be surprised by it.

Other than the administration, its sycophants and the mainstream media (sometimes indistinguishable from each other) everyone knew that invading Iraq would be a huge gift to Al Qaeda.

Why does bin Laden get elevated to the level of "prophet" for merely predicting the most reasonable outcome from the American military misadventures in the mideast?
posted by psmealey at 10:25 AM on March 14, 2007


Why does bin Laden get elevated to the level of "prophet"

Because thier standards for prophet are no more stringent that our standards for President.
posted by tkchrist at 10:28 AM on March 14, 2007 [12 favorites]


Stability and lowering the bloodshed is the range of outcomes and expectations we ought to be talking about now, not looking for Switzerland on the Tigris or anything remotely resembling a liberal democracy. A Shia Saddam -- without nearly as much brutality, but still a strongman -- is actually one of the best hopes.

Mission Accomplished.
posted by slimepuppy at 10:28 AM on March 14, 2007


30% of this country is arguably suffering from head trauma. And that probably is STILL half of the Republican voting population. They're settling into the role of minority party nicely, thank you, fearing the UN, global warming, dark people, and black helicopters, but I suspect that we'll have plenty of domestic terrorism (think Waco and Oklahoma City) from the most dejected of those. What do we do with them? How do you handle those who prefer the warmth of a lie to the cold, hard truth?
posted by rzklkng at 10:29 AM on March 14, 2007


so wait, you're saying Bush is dumb and the war in Iraq was a bad idea? This is the first I've heard of it- why didn't someone bring this up earlier??
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:31 AM on March 14, 2007


I'm not so sure the "Islamists" have "won" Iraq... I think it is more likely that everyone lost.
Setting that aside, the balance is weighted towards defence in an armed struggle, especially when one side can directly call upon people to actively give up their lives (suicide bombers), you simply can not win a war when large numbers of people are willing to do this. The options are... 1) kill everyone, and I mean EVERYONE who may even remotely be against you, 2) leave, 3) negotiate. Both Afghanistan (USSR conflict and starting to be of the current one) and Iraq can be construed as a defensive war from the view point of those living and fighting there.
posted by edgeways at 10:33 AM on March 14, 2007


Rolling Stone is so old fashioned. Here is pitchfork's review:

The republican's second Iraq war debuted at #2 on the Billboard top 200 conflicts, stomping all over the lesser conflagrations such as the spicy Kashmir separation and the R&B contributions of the Ivory Coast, Sudan, Congo. Only Israel's attack on Lebanon was more explosive at the counter.

With the distance of a few years from desert storm the follow up Iraq conflict reveals some flaws typical of a breakout act. Gone is the sense of purpose. Restraint has flown out the window. Where the first war had a structured narrative of invade, invade and then retreat the current conflict is just a catchy but quickly annoying opening and then an endless pointless slog sounding like a later day prog rock death rattle. The fanboys keep saying give it six months. It'll turn the corner. It never does.
posted by srboisvert at 10:34 AM on March 14, 2007 [20 favorites]


However, in the "just so crazy it might just work", all out-regional war that doesn't spread across continents causing a giant Muslim Civil War might also be part of the Deciders plan.
posted by rzklkng at 10:35 AM on March 14, 2007


They're settling into the role of minority party nicely, thank you, fearing the UN, global warming, dark people, and black helicopters, but I suspect that we'll have plenty of domestic terrorism (think Waco and Oklahoma City) from the most dejected of those.

I was wondering the other day if we're going to be seeing those "I Love My Country But I Fear My Government" bumper stickers again. I always liked those, but for some reason they all vanished when Bush took office.
posted by brundlefly at 10:38 AM on March 14, 2007


Yay! America is going to lose! Three cheers!
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 10:40 AM on March 14, 2007


Iraq is so yesterday, the future is Iran.
posted by caddis at 10:41 AM on March 14, 2007


Iraq is the "heart of Islam"?
posted by chunking express at 10:42 AM on March 14, 2007


I do not think the decider is so grand in his vision. I think this was a "cakewalk" operation for us to build Saudi Arabia v2.0 (Now with 30% fewer arabs!) and, well, it didn't go that well. Turns out that there are things out there that are worse than Saddam Hussein.
posted by Mister_A at 10:43 AM on March 14, 2007


No country has the money or munitions capability to exert a full scale regional war. Nor is it in the interest of any ruling power to do so. Expect a Lebanon-like Iraq ruled by militias in some areas and increased guerrilla violence across the Middle East. The Sunni Shiite conflict, while very real, is much more a result of a power vacuum in Iraq than a larger religious war ready to boil over.
posted by geoff. at 10:44 AM on March 14, 2007


This article is interesting and important because it advances the debate over the Iraq conflict. Everyone should read it carefully.

We can see that among the regional experts, like Rosen and Cole, the role of the United States in Iraq has become an irrelevance. America has lost, but this fact is strangely unimportant. It doesn't matter what decisions the United States makes. They cannot change the balance of power between the factions vying for control of Iraq and they have no remaining power to shape international policy towards Iraq or to build coalitions. It may withdraw from its conquered permanent bases eventually, perhaps due to attrition and supply failure, but the US is no longer an actor. It cannot distinguish one Arab from another and its reaction time is so much greater than the other actors that it cannot influence the conflict's outcome.

The primary question has become what Iraqis will do. And not just Iraqis in Iraq. The most significant players, as Rosen says, may be the 4 million Iraqi refugees, many of whom have settled outside the country and have strong ties within it. The Palestinian struggle and resistance movement began in this way, and they brought war and destruction to a number of states. There are far more Iraqi Sunni refugees, many of whom will become militants. The second most important question is how Iraq's neighbors will act and how they will become drawn into the conflict. And as a number of panelists point out, on this question hinges a potential world war.

Or perhaps "WWIII is already here"....
posted by Bletch at 10:44 AM on March 14, 2007


SCDB, wanting to win and being able to win are not the same thing. Looking at problems critically is more valuable than being a cheerleader. Imagine how bad things would have been if there wasn't a weak and ineffective opposition to the war in Iraq and BushCo got their way from day one? We would have been having this conversation 3-years ago.
posted by rzklkng at 10:46 AM on March 14, 2007


If yer Newt Gingrich I think WWIII is occurring, or at least that what he claims.
posted by edgeways at 10:50 AM on March 14, 2007


The article really doesn't address what the cost of failure is to the United States. On the surface, I thought that the Bush, Cheney, McCain, Lieberman fear was that the US would fall like the Soviet Union (although the US military seems unwilling or unable to mount a coup - it's just not in their character, even if it were justified), and that "our way of life" would be lost, with ominous visions of being forced to convert to Islam at swordpoint.

Then there's the oil - 12% of global oil production would be a very bad thing. And I suspect that China, India, Russia and others will be wanting to choose sides as well. Everyone could have a dog in this fight.

What's really going on domestically is that failure in Iraq will likely cause the public to truly turn it's back in the GOP for good. Personally, we need to win, and one party rule on the left would be just nearly as bad as the right. The "unimaginable failure" that they refer to is their own, and with it the death of the Republican Party.

What could happen is us going back to a period of isolationism circa 1920-1930s where the next global bad guy sprouts up...
posted by rzklkng at 10:54 AM on March 14, 2007


.
posted by taosbat at 10:54 AM on March 14, 2007


Cole: During the war between Iraq and Iran, Saddam and Khomeini didn't destroy each other's oil-producing capabilities, because they knew it would make each of them a Fourth World country

really?
Abadan, the Kangan refinery, Kharq Island terminal attacked.
THE TAKNER WAR.

alot of these attacks failed because of ability to rebuild, but they tried.

TANKER WAR
1988 Iraq attacked 189 tankers, 164 damaged
Iran 171 strikes, 127 hits.
the kharg attacks Iranian exports fell from 1.5 milb/d to i mill b/d.

it was the sovs switching to exporting beyond the bloc and the market glut that caused alot of damage plus the iranians had a 10% revenue drop because of DEEP DISCOUNTS ((echo))

it is true to some degree that oil feilds were "spared" but I believe this was due to lack of military capibilty (in the early phases)

"Oil was the major component of the econmies of both iran and iraq, vital to the war effoort of both sides, but right from the the start of the war Iran was able to prevent Iraq from using the Gulf for it's oil exports"
it was saudi and Kuwait whoproduced"an allocation on it's behalf...this reduced iraqs standing in OPEC (K)
culled from "The Gulf War" by Bulloch and Morris.

I love blowing Juan Cole outta the water.
posted by clavdivs at 10:56 AM on March 14, 2007


well... I always want the bullies to lose, no matter who they are. In this case it was two bullies facing off against one another, the one just happend to have a bigger army at his disposial.

Incidentally, I think it is near the height of absurdity that Iraq had no WMDs, got invaded on the pretext it did, country ruined huge amounts of suffering spread about... North Korea, HAD WMDs, negotiations where used, country not invaded despite some seriously provocative behavior, and while things are not great there, they are better then current Iraq.

The lesion: negotiations can work, even with unstable leaders at both ends. In fact I've long held that the Iraq invasion was proof there was no WMDs, and those in power knew it.
posted by edgeways at 10:57 AM on March 14, 2007



The U.S. should pay reparations. Pass a "corporate reparations act" in Congress. The bigger the war contractor- like Grumman, GE etc- the higher the tax rate.

All of the money should go to infrastructure and healthcare.

If there were actual liberals in high places in Washington, maybe this would not be such a pipedream.
posted by wfc123 at 10:57 AM on March 14, 2007


umm, i wish spell check was, a back
posted by clavdivs at 10:58 AM on March 14, 2007


Yay! America is going to lose! Three cheers!

America lost the day the Supreme Court ruled for Bush in 2001.
posted by jokeefe at 10:59 AM on March 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


now for o pin yhin
I dont need these guys to tell me its F$$#^&
the guy down the street whose familiy lives in Baghdad tells me enough and I am ASHAMED people.

The Clavdivs Plan for getting combat troops out of Iraq
1.0 have them form an effective police force and interim government

1.1 have, wait, give them an army.

1.2 have them form a secret police. (refer to 1.0)

1.3 sell them what they need at cost. (this is subject to what the need is.)

1.4 dispel any cultural epistemological naivety.

1.5 Leave.

((this means keep your smart ass comments like they need a Wal-mart in the comedy pocket, they need the means to produce what they can, not the building in which to sell it))
posted by clavdivs at 10:29 PM PST on September 20, 2003

Was I right, you bet....as is my friend in that a limited invasion should have occured.

oh, and i propose to just GIVE Iran a nuclear weapon and lets cut out the crap. they get ONE now, more later if they play nice.
posted by clavdivs at 11:07 AM on March 14, 2007


I'm sick up to my fucking teeth of conservatives accusing anyone who points out the increasingly and egregiously obvious disaster in Iraq as somehow cheerleading American defeat. I don't get one scrap of pleasure out of our situation. It has squandered billions of dollars and at least tens of thousands of lives (and terribly injured, in one way or another, hundreds of thousands of others). It has evaporated almost every scrap of good will and whatever political capital is not based on sheer economic necessity America had post 9-11 in the international community. It has pushed our military forces to the brink of exhaustion and left our country more vulnerable in every capacity and no, in fact, I do not like any of that one little god damned bit. I do not like that my son is going to grow up in a more dangerous world for our fumbling interference in the Middle East. I do not like that my nation is swimming in unsustainable debt. I do not like that so many of the chief architects of 9-11 remain free, that their primary harborers in Afghanistan are resurgent, and that whatever did get done about that had absolutely zero to do with Iraq, where Bush's administration has evaporated the majority of our resources spent "combating terror." And the reason we won't shut up about it is because Dick Cheney can go on national television and say they did all the right things and wouldn't change a thing, because this administration continues to behave as if it is rational to pursue a policy of refusing to negotiate directly with Syria and Iran. We will not make any of what little progress is available to us in this mess we have created until we face up to how bad it really is and stop pretending that a few tweaks and a few new slogans and a new facade on the same lies that got us here in the first place are going to do anything but make a bad situation worse. Argue the veracity of those points if you will but spare me the tired ideology that it is somehow contrary to patriotism to call the truth as you see it.
posted by nanojath at 11:08 AM on March 14, 2007 [23 favorites]


Any reasonable "historical expert" would say that we have no friggin idea how all this is going to turn out. It may be good for us, it may be bad (ditto for the Iraqis). But we really don't know. Far too much is in play. If I had five bucks to bet, I'd lay it on "We're going to be surprised."
posted by MarshallPoe at 11:10 AM on March 14, 2007


Yay! America is going to lose!

Reducing these incredibly complex situations into fifth grade level thinking (we win! you lose!) is exactly what gets us into these terrible messes in the first place, and keeps us from doing the right thing after we've fucked up so badly we can't move forward.
posted by psmealey at 11:10 AM on March 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


wanting to win and being able to win are not the same thing

I have no idea what winning even is in this situation. Seriously, what was the objective then and what the hell is it now? Was it to install the first secular democracy in the middle east? Or a US friendly puppet govt? Permanent Military Bases for the coming oil wars with China? If there was some kind of objective maybe some heroic way progress could made towards it.

As far I can tell 28,000 more troops are getting thrown into Iraq and Afghanistan to cover Bush's retreat from responsibility and as a Hail Mary pass which the administration actually hopes gets intercepted by Democrats so they will have to figure out what to do with the ball.
posted by srboisvert at 11:11 AM on March 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yay! America is going to lose! Three cheers!

and the irony is, a -- tiny, OK -- part of the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the clueless -- or dishonest, and sometimes both -- warbloggers and Bush waterboys who have been tirelessly cheerleading the Bush administration on the way to defeat.

and now that two US soldiers and countless Iraqis (nobody's really counting after all because nobody who matters really cares) are dying every day because of that ill-conceived and corrupt war, those same bloggers and various Bush waterboys don't even have the common decency to, at least, shut the fuck up for a minute.
posted by matteo at 11:23 AM on March 14, 2007 [7 favorites]


The Seymour Hersh Mystery: A Journalist Writing Bloody Murder… And No One Notices
posted by homunculus at 11:31 AM on March 14, 2007 [4 favorites]


Left Behind: The Plight Of Iraqis Who Helped The U.S.
posted by homunculus at 11:54 AM on March 14, 2007


"Yay! America is going to lose! Three cheers!"

I think the mindset that would lead a person to post something like this is a big part of the problem. The comment means - "We're losing the war, therefor people who oppose the war are happy".

Contrast that with what's really going on among those (like me) who always thought invading Iraq was a ludicrously bad idea which would lead to failure and worse - I've watched as the right gleefully embraced this stupid idea and bashed anyone (freedom fries) who didn't support it. It is EXTREMELY DEPRESSING to see the country you love supporting something this stupid. And I've spent the last few years being very depressed over it.

Now I'm being vindicated. It was a bad idea, badly planned, and badly conducted. Does this make me happy all of a sudden? Of course not. How could it?

Straight up SDB - I'm asking. How could this make me happy? I'm sincerely interested in your logic on this comment.
posted by Devidicus at 11:55 AM on March 14, 2007 [3 favorites]


I do not believe that Cheney et al. are so oblivious or such naive ideologues to actually believe Iraq is not a debacle.

So the perennial arises: "Who Benefits?"

Who continues to benefit from this administration straining credulity with their empty assertions of confidence and competence? Who grows in power and wealth from all of this? What goals are achieved that could not have been met otherwise?
posted by MasonDixon at 11:58 AM on March 14, 2007


Oops. Perennial Question arises. Although I'm sure such a flower as "Who Benefits" would be popular.
posted by MasonDixon at 12:00 PM on March 14, 2007


rzklkng writes "However, in the 'just so crazy it might just work', all out-regional war that doesn't spread across continents causing a giant Muslim Civil War might also be part of the Deciders plan."

Well, that's an awesome best-case-scenario. Fucking shit.

MasonDixon writes "Who continues to benefit from this administration straining credulity with their empty assertions of confidence and competence? Who grows in power and wealth from all of this? What goals are achieved that could not have been met otherwise?"

I really think it's as simple as the folks in charge were in over their heads, they fucked up, and now they don't know what to do, so they're doing more of the same. They're just not very competent people. Sure, Cheney is a pretty sharp Washington insider, but his capacity for geopolitical strategy seems minimal. The PNAC people talked a good game, but had absolutely zero military experience, so it's not surprising their military planning went bad. And Bush? That guy has failed at just about everything he's ever tried. More failure shouldn't be surprising. (What is surprising is that he isn't letting his Daddy's friend bail him out this time. I guess the job has gotten to his head.)

Which is to say that there's no need to assume malice when incompetence is an adequate explanation.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:05 PM on March 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


The comment means - "We're losing the war, therefor people who oppose the war are happy".

I interpret it as sarcastic bitterness, not happiness.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:05 PM on March 14, 2007


I'm not sure that winning is what we think it is. Did Israel win against Lebanon? If winning is getting what you want, then no.

If winning is demolishing the infrastructure and destroying the social institutions, then yes. This is an important point because WW3 was the whole world, a massive number of infrastructures and social institutions, laying it on the line.

At the start of WW2 we could not do to Japan or Germany what has happened to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon.

This is why "winning" is no longer a useful measure of success.
posted by ewkpates at 12:07 PM on March 14, 2007


Steven C. Den Beste wrote: Yay! America is going to lose! Three cheers!

Actually, I think he's quite serious. It's becoming harder and harder to explain the actions of the Conservatives without believing that they are deliberately trying to lose the war and destroy America.

Hey, Steven: why does you hate America and freedom so? What was so wrong with the Bill of Rights that it had to be rescinded? Why do you hate the troops so much that you condemned tens of thousands of them to painful deaths and mutilation?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:08 PM on March 14, 2007


I vote for the worst case scenario. WWIII. Let's pull everything out of the Middle East. I'm so fucking sick of Israel and AIPAC, the Iraq War and Iran and neoconservatives and their American Hegemony. Let's lock the doors and head down into Bunker USA, gas goes to 15 dollars a gallon - fine I'll walk. Let the regional conflict burn itself out (nuke itself out?).
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 12:20 PM on March 14, 2007


Steven C. Den Beste wrote: Yay! America is going to lose! Three cheers!

Actually, I think he's quite serious. It's becoming harder and harder to explain the actions of the Conservatives without believing that they are deliberately trying to lose the war and destroy America.

Hey, Steven: why does you hate America and freedom so? What was so wrong with the Bill of Rights that it had to be rescinded? Why do you hate the troops so much that you condemned tens of thousands of them to painful deaths and mutilation?

Well done, l_y.


And this article The Seymour Hersh Mystery: A Journalist Writing Bloody Murder… And No One Notices is excellent. Thank you, homunculus
posted by jokeefe at 12:24 PM on March 14, 2007


so wait, you're saying Bush is dumb and the war in Iraq was a bad idea? This is the first I've heard of it- why didn't someone bring this up earlier??

You just couldn't hear with your head that far up your ass.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:37 PM on March 14, 2007 [2 favorites]


Steven C. Den Beste writes "Yay! America is going to lose! Three cheers!"

Go back to France, commie.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:37 PM on March 14, 2007


That TomDispatch article sums it up nicely - it's the same guys, same dirty tricks, but with #43 at the wheel. To admit all of that is true is to admit that the America we think we know doesn't exist, and there have been successful conspiracies in our recent past.
posted by rzklkng at 12:53 PM on March 14, 2007


You know, I thought I was pessimistic about the outcome of this debacle, but these guys take the cake.

Something tells me that Brzezinski, Clarke, et al are a bit too negative. As fatuous as the "Yay!" comment was, there is a kernel of truth to it insomuch as of the names I recognize in this panel were all pretty much negative about the war from the get-go. One gets the impression that there is more than a little schadenfreude being expressed.

I mean, come on, invading Iraq was a f*cking self-inflicted wound to our national security and all, not to mention immoral, wrongheaded, and downright evil, but it's not like we've done something that threatens our existence as a nation.

It's only by continuing the failed strategy that we are following that we do that.
posted by moonbiter at 12:57 PM on March 14, 2007


MasonDixon : Perennial Question arises "Who Benefits"

So, how hard would it be for the government to seize control of Halliburton's assets (eminent domain maybe?) and redistribute them back into Iraq? We need to make sure we freeze the bank accounts of all it's board members as well; that's money that could be rebuilding an infrastructure.

It'd never happen, but a boy can dream can't he?
posted by quin at 12:57 PM on March 14, 2007


Steven C. Den Beste writes "Yay! America is going to lose! Three cheers!"


Only mental midgets don't understand that acknowledging the US is screwing the pooch != liking that fact.

Of course SCDB knows what he's saying: he's just shitting on the thread. Of course, if the rest of us would just STFU and toe the Neocon line, he wouldn't have to.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:02 PM on March 14, 2007


The other day I was watching a CNN fluff story about a big wonderful new Navy ship. I thought:

1. How many tax dollars did that thing cost?
2. How the hell is that going to help the Mideast land war(s) where the "enemy" is not a uniformed military/ naval unit with predictable maneuvers?
3. And why the feck isn't the dickwad reporter asking these questions?

(It's like watching a movie or reenactment of a Revolutionary or Civil War battle and you wonder - WHY did they stay in block formations marching straight toward each other? Why did it take centuries for the dumbass guys in charge to admit that was idiotic.)

And now here we are with the all-time Dumbasses in Charge and their unrealistic visions of an easy war ending in rose petals strewn at our feet.

How could they not know anything about the complexities of that country/ region, and that it was going to be less like cheering Parisians greeting the Allies at WWI's end and more like the Viet Cong "greeting" the US Army ca 1970.

Well, I guess you go to war with the dumbass leaders you've got, not the good leaders you need.
posted by NorthernLite at 1:07 PM on March 14, 2007


rzklkng: However, in the "just so crazy it might just work", all out-regional war that doesn't spread across continents causing a giant Muslim Civil War might also be part of the Deciders plan.

Not necessarily Bush's plan, but perhaps the neocon's?

I was thinking recently that civil war in Iraq may well have been Plan B all along (Plan A being 'They welcome us with open arms'), with the idea being a classic colonialist divide and rule strategy, with factions kicking the crap out of each other, before the minority (Sunnis - oops) turn to the West for protection and are (re)installed as the heads of a client state.

More darkly, perhaps Plan A was just part of the spin for selling the start of the war, and Plan B was The Plan all along anyway.
posted by carter at 1:09 PM on March 14, 2007


If the ship you're thinking of is the USS New Orleans, she is exactly the kind of ship we need for now and the next thirty years. With an entire battalion of Marines on board, we can insert and support them wherever we wish from the sea with very little advance notice.

Because of the lifespan of these ships, it's necessary to think what we need beyond this very instant and look to the long term.
posted by Andrew Brinton at 1:16 PM on March 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


On a related note: The Economist's review of the new Shins album totally sucks.
posted by jimmythefish at 1:33 PM on March 14, 2007


"Who Benefits?"

Only one answer to that: Follow The Money.

(Which quin basically just said, but I thought I'd distill it.)

As far as Halliburton, they're moving their corp HQ to Dubai, which will make them "unfreezable," and coincidentally will reduce their Federal tax liability to some infinitesimal fraction of what it is now, if not zero.

It occurs to me that it will also put them out of reach of prosecution should the Democrats sweep 2008 and are pressured by us to start stringing people up.

Convenient, huh?
posted by zoogleplex at 1:40 PM on March 14, 2007


rzklkng: However, in the "just so crazy it might just work", all out-regional war that doesn't spread across continents causing a giant Muslim Civil War might also be part of the Deciders plan.

I know of someone who thinks this is exactly the plan.
posted by malaprohibita at 1:41 PM on March 14, 2007


If the ship you're thinking of is the USS New Orleans, she is exactly the kind of ship we need for now and the next thirty years. With an entire battalion of Marines on board, we can insert and support them wherever we wish from the sea with very little advance notice.


Great! We've obviously haven't fucked up enough. Let's insert the marines into another shithole, waste a few more billions and make everyone to hate us just a tad more.
posted by c13 at 1:48 PM on March 14, 2007


Don't want to get all FOXNEWS here, but do we have to consider "the Upside of Failure"?
posted by rzklkng at 1:48 PM on March 14, 2007


zoogleplex: It occurs to me that it will also put them out of reach of prosecution should the Democrats sweep 2008 and are pressured by us to start stringing people up.

Well, if the UAE won't play nice with legal extradition, I'm all for extradition via special forces.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:55 PM on March 14, 2007


If the ship you're thinking of is the USS New Orleans, she is exactly the kind of ship we need for now and the next thirty years. With an entire battalion of Marines on board, we can insert and support them wherever we wish from the sea with very little advance notice.

Right, exactly why this sort of thing is an evil and stupid idea. The United States needs to get over this mentality that they have a right to mount a massive invasion anywhere in the world at any time.

There are really two cases in modern warfare -- lightning response, or long-drawn-out, cripplingly expensive wars. The United States is completely incapable of handling either one of these effectively at this point. Note the incredibly sluggish response to 9/11, which effectively allowed Bin Laden to slip away. Note the wretched performance of the US military in Iraq. (Note also that the "Defense" Department completely failed to defend us on 9/11 -- yet nothing has changed and no one was held responsible.)

Purchasing more huge ships is showing that the US Military has learned nothing from its repeated failures.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:04 PM on March 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


The United States has a great track record with your basic, straightforward wars. The United States has a lousy track record when it comes to things like regime change, installing "friendly" people into power (Taliban, anyone?), and guerrilla warfare. We pick the wrong people to head up new governments. We lay waste to things when we should use a finer hand. The war has played out exactly as expected by a lot of people. The war may have even played out as planned by bin Laden. He baited the bull with a little red scrap of cloth and a prick in the side, and we began predictably thundering about. So, if someone wants to say "Yay!" it's probably because they're taking a quick break from being totally depressed over the way the American public bought into the concept.
posted by adipocere at 2:06 PM on March 14, 2007


adipocere writes "The United States has a great track record with your basic, straightforward wars. The United States has a lousy track record when it comes to things like regime change, installing 'friendly' people into power (Taliban, anyone?), and guerrilla warfare. We pick the wrong people to head up new governments. We lay waste to things when we should use a finer hand."

The funny thing is, back on the campaign trail in 2000, GW Bush would have probably agreed with you 100%. Remember, this was a man who believed in a "foreign policy based on humility" and scorned the idea of nation-building. These were his convictions.

The fact that he abandoned these convictions at the very first sign of adversity proves that he is a coward, a weakling, and a fool.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:14 PM on March 14, 2007


Zoogleplex:

Though I do think Halliburton's move seems fishy, I don't think it will have the effect you are saying it will. NPR's On Point radio show last night (HTML page w/links to audio) devoted a forty-minute segment to this last night, and their guests pretty much agreed that:
posted by MarvinTheCat at 2:15 PM on March 14, 2007


The United States has a great track record with your basic, straightforward wars.

How so? Since WWII, pretty well all the military interventions of the United States have gone badly. The Korean War at least managed to rescue South Korea from the very kreepy North Koreans but didn't manage to achieve its stated objectives -- aside from that it's been pretty well total disaster every time.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:25 PM on March 14, 2007


"Halliburton doesn't currently appear to be moving their state of incorporation from Delaware,"

Well, let's just see how it actually all falls out in the end, shall we?

And yes, from a business POV it makes a lot of sense. From what I've seen, Saudi Arabia is increasing their drilling rig count at a frenzied pace, not to mention building a slew of new heavy/sour crude refineries and that's what Halliburton does, oil services.

Note that Saudi warp-driving their rig count while their production seems to be slipping is not a good sign.

"Remember, this was a man who believed in a "foreign policy based on humility" and scorned the idea of nation-building. These were his convictions."

No, these were his campaign promises. Important difference. And you know how well candidates stick to them. In Bush's case, those promises were pure hot air.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:34 PM on March 14, 2007


aside from that it's been pretty well total disaster every time.

Nuh-uh. Only if you think the stated goals of those wars were what the goals of those wars REALLY were.

There have been hundreds of low-level "interventions" since WWII that have been very successful —IF you buy into the containment theory and "making the world safe for the wanton capitalism of the chosen few." We have successfully kept the lanes of commerce flowing in the "preferred" direction.

If you buy into the "making the world safe for democracy" thing? Ok. Not so much.

This president has taken his wars to an new high in incompetency and cronyism. The circle of profiteers was very, very small. And frankly they didn't get that much for thier efforts. I know people will disagree. But I bet Haliburton and KBR are disapointed in thier puppets.

At least in wars past there was much more trickle down. We got at least bridges, libraries, schools and Public Treasure from our plunder.
posted by tkchrist at 3:41 PM on March 14, 2007


The Russians are a lot tougher than the Americans

Hear, hear.

America would never in a million years endure the sacrifice that the Russians went through during the Great Patriotic War, not to mention the oppression that followed under Stalin.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:56 PM on March 14, 2007


Well, actually the majority of the purges came in the 20's and 30's, before the war.
posted by c13 at 4:30 PM on March 14, 2007


America would never in a million years endure the sacrifice that the Russians went through during the Great Patriotic War, not to mention the oppression that followed under Stalin.

no, because we'd have totally kicked their asses before we had to endure as much ... a guy who comes from a country that's been taken over by bunny rabbits has NO room to talk
posted by pyramid termite at 4:42 PM on March 14, 2007


Hard to tell what's greater, SCDB's moral cowardice or his idiocy.
posted by bardic at 4:46 PM on March 14, 2007 [2 favorites]


it's even harder to care, bardic ... he's becoming totally irrelevant
posted by pyramid termite at 4:55 PM on March 14, 2007


America would never in a million years endure the sacrifice that the Russians went through during the Great Patriotic War....

American South. 1861-65.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:57 PM on March 14, 2007


America would never in a million years endure the sacrifice that the Russians went through during the Great Patriotic War

Patrick Swayze would like a word with you.

WOLVERINES!!!
posted by Cyrano at 5:08 PM on March 14, 2007


American South. 1861-65.

Total servicemembers (Conf.) 1,050,000
Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.) 59,2972

Soviet Union
Military deaths: 10,700,000
Civilian deaths: 11,500,000
Jewish Holocaust deaths: 1,000,000

I'm not sure whether you paid as little attention in Math as you did in History, but that comes out to be 23,200,000.

According to an 1850 census, the U.S. population was 23,191,867...
posted by c13 at 5:23 PM on March 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


he's becoming totally irrelevant

I'm sure the cartoons are a comfort. If he only piddled himself while watching them it might be better than piddling in threads.
posted by taosbat at 6:11 PM on March 14, 2007


And that's not counting Stalin's later purges. Nobody really knows exactly how many people died via purge or war in the USSR between 1917 and 1950. What some Russian friends of mine have told me is that every single family lost at least one, usually more than one, member during the period starting 1940.

Seriously, the Russians have bled and suffered in ways we just can't really fully understand, for a very long time. Our civil war was horrible, but it was pretty brief.

But we digress.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:12 PM on March 14, 2007


a guy who comes from a country that's been taken over by bunny rabbits has NO room to talk

They probably don't teach you this in your schools (being that part of the geography subject that relates to the rest of the world), but rabbits have always been endemic in Latvia.

Part of the reason that the Russians were not able to "totally kick ass" was that Latvia chose to fight on the Germans' side, largely in response to previous Russian atrocities.

In fact, the only substantial part of the armies of Germany & her allies to remain intact against the Russian advance once the tide had turned at Stalingrad was in the Latvian state of Kurzeme - the so-called Courland Pocket.

Until the end of the war, Army Group Courland (including divisions such as the Latvian Freiwilligen SS Legion) successfully defended the Latvian peninsula.

A guy who comes from a country that only has enough courage to take potshots at the Russians via bearded & towelheaded proxies has NO room to talk.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:38 PM on March 14, 2007


the whole point is that you don't know crap about america ... you are ignorant of our history, our culture and our ability to fight on our home turf

Part of the reason that the Russians were not able to "totally kick ass"

is that they were grossly incompetent, ill-armed and culturally servile ... that's not opinion, that's historical fact ... the first two explains why the germans almost beat them ... the servility explains why they tolerated an asshole like stalin running their country

A guy who comes from a country that only has enough courage to take potshots at the Russians via bearded & towelheaded proxies

look up 1962 cuban missile crisis, will you? ... like i said, ignorant of history
posted by pyramid termite at 7:16 PM on March 14, 2007


The 1962 Mexican Standoff?

Was a shot even fired in that? Did a single person lose their life, other than maybe drowning whilst taking a dip in the balmy Caribbean after one too many Cuba Libres?

Spend a winter in Stalingrad & get back to me.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:41 PM on March 14, 2007


Let's not bring up the Cuban missile crisis here. At least not before learning something other than Hollywood version of it. You may want to start here, for example.
posted by c13 at 7:43 PM on March 14, 2007


no time for learning, c13, this here throwdown's just getting good!
posted by hackly_fracture at 7:56 PM on March 14, 2007


Your favorite nation-state sucks.
posted by BaxterG4 at 8:01 PM on March 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair ! :
...I suspect that for most Iraqis, the single most astounding aspect of the American occupation (besides the fact that it finally happened, at long last) has been that we have not been arresting those in Iraq who have publicly criticized us. When mullahs returning from exile in Iran made speeches demanding we withdraw and that Iraq become a Khomeneiite theocracy, we left them alone.

Some here feared that tolerating that would cause more and more Iraqis to flock to support such movements, and that the majority Shiites might coalesce around such a political position.

But the exact opposite has occurred: those early opposition speakers were seen by most Iraqis as being noteworthy because of their public opposition, not because their message was attractive. Many watched attentively to see how we'd respond. When the proto-theocrats were not persecuted, other Iraqis with other opinions began voicing them, too. Some were critical of the Americans, some were supportive, some were mixed. A lot of what they talked about didn't have anything to do with us at all. But the one thing most of them came to agree on was that free expression itself was a pretty neat thing, even if they didn't agree about much else. Since the would-be Iraqi theocrats wanted to take that away from them again, support for the theocrats has not materialized, and most of them have ceased advocating establishment of an Islamic Republic in Iraq...

...We humans are designed to think and make decisions, but we have to be taught, and usually we have to be forced, to blindly follow orders. Our fundamental independence can be suppressed but never eliminated. It's still in there, waiting, in everyone. And now that oppression has lifted, it's starting to bloom in Iraq. As time goes on, it become more wide spread, in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. And it will accelerate.

And that means we're beginning to win the war. This was the real reason for conquering Iraq. This is our best strategic weapon against the extremists who attacked us. Their power is in their ideas, their beliefs, and basic to them is a dedication to uniformity and central control, of submission of the masses to the will of the few. We counter that with our idea about individual liberty, and our idea is better. I believe that it's better ethically and esthetically. Societies based on our idea are more productive in nearly every way. And our idea is more competitive memetically. Our idea is more seductive, more attractive. Against it they have little defense.

Diversity and freedom are anathema to them, and it is our dedication to those things which have made us more powerful than they are. If our idea continues to spread, their ideas will be marginalized and will wither away. And then the war will be over.

We will eliminate our enemies not by killing them in hordes, but by infecting them with ideas which will convert most of them to friends. That process has now begun.
USS Clueless - Decompressing Iraq Stardate 20030929.1414
posted by y2karl at 8:01 PM on March 14, 2007 [2 favorites]


you are ignorant of our history, our culture and our ability to fight on our home turf

Home turf? Last time you guys did that was during the Civil War. The only other time the home turf was attacked, you lost the whole fleet.
posted by c13 at 8:44 PM on March 14, 2007


I was just at drill last weekend. A growing number of guys in my unit have been to Iraq at least once. The smartest of them, a hard-charging young Captain, still thinks the war can be won.

I don't know if that's possible, or if it was ever possible. It's very easy right now to say it isn't, and wasn't. But this gives me pause: There are a bunch of guys and gals out there who have risked a lot to make this work. They are fully aware of the tawdry beginnings of the war, but to them that does not matter now. What matters to them are those people in the however-many square miles they are responsible for. If this war ends with us leaving, they are going to always feel like we could have won, if only...
posted by atchafalaya at 9:12 PM on March 14, 2007


...if only...

The cry of the Viet Nam Veteran...echoing...
posted by taosbat at 9:32 PM on March 14, 2007


look up 1962 cuban missile crisis, will you? ... like i said, ignorant of history

1. US puts missiles into Turkey.
2. Soviet Union puts missiles into Cuba.
3. US outraged that Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba.
4. Soviet Union removes missiles from Cuba.
5. US removes missiles from Turkey. Quid pro quo.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:59 PM on March 14, 2007


...As Pogo, the cartoon opossum, once famously said, “We have met the enemy and he is us!” Yes, that’s right: We, the American people—not the Bush administration, nor the hapless Iraqis, nor the meddlesome Iranians (the new scapegoat)—are the root of the problem.

It’s woven into our cultural DNA. Most Americans mistakenly believe that when we say that “all men are created equal,” it means that all people are the same. Behind the “cute” and “charming” native clothing, the “weird” marriage customs, and the “odd” food of other cultures, all humans are yearning for lifestyles and futures that will be increasingly unified as time and globalization progress. That is what Tom Friedman seems to have meant when he wrote that “the world is flat”—that technological and economic change are driving humankind toward a future of cultural sameness...

To be blunt, our foreign policy tends to be predicated on the notion that everyone wants to be an American...

Americans invaded an imaginary Iraq that fit into our vision of the world. We invaded Iraq in the sure belief that inside every Iraqi there was an American trying to get out...

Unfortunately for us and for them, that was not the real Iraq. In the real Iraq, cultural distinction from the West is still treasured, a manifestation of participation in the Islamic cultural “continent.” Tribe, sect, and community remain far more important than individual rights. One does not vote for candidates outside one’s community unless one is a Baathist, Nasserist, or Communist (or, perhaps, a believer in world “flatness” like Tom Friedman and the neocons). But Iraqis know what Americans want to hear about “identity,” and be they Shiite, Kurd, or Sunni Arab, they tell us that they are all Iraqis.

Finding ourselves in the wrong Iraq, Americans have stubbornly insisted that the real Iraqis should behave as our dream Iraqis would surely do. The result has been frustration, disappointment, and finally rage against the “craziness” of the Iraqis. We are still acting out our dream, insisting that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s Shiite sectarian government “unify” the state, imagining that Maliki is a sort of Iraqi George Washington seeking the greater good for all. He is not that. His chief task is to consolidate Shiite Arab power while using the United States to accomplish the deed. To that end, he will tell us whatever we want to be told. He will sacrifice however many of his brethren are necessary to maintain the illusion, so long as the loss is not crippling to his effort. He will treat us as the naifs that we are.
What Iraq Tells Us About Ourselves
posted by y2karl at 10:50 PM on March 14, 2007


kirkaracha: thanks for the summary.

do you also have a nice five-point method for making me blissfully ignorant of american 'culture'?

(um, apart from the bits i like, that is)
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:52 PM on March 14, 2007


Yay! America is going to lose! Three cheers!

I can get behind that sentiment.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:54 PM on March 14, 2007


The problem with the Vietnam analogy is that it's not dismal enough. The South Vietnamese government the US tried to prop up was thuggish and undemocratic, but not communist. What we've got with Maliki is someone who's all about making Iran and Iraq bosom Shia buddies.

And this is now the best case scenario for the US. It's mind-boggling. Every dollar spent and every military life lost empowers Iran in the long-run. That's Bush's legacy in a nutshell.
posted by bardic at 1:42 AM on March 15, 2007


Well, actually the majority of the purges came in the 20's and 30's, before the war.

A point too often forgotten. Stalin had eliminated practically all of the Red Army's seasoned officer corps before the first shot was even fired during WWII. Arguably, if he hadn't done this, the Nazis probably would not have advanced as far into Russia as they did, and many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Russian lives would not have been lost.
posted by psmealey at 3:59 AM on March 15, 2007


do you also have a nice five-point method for making me blissfully ignorant of american 'culture'?

screw that, i want to hear how latvia's going to invade us ... first, are they buying one way or two way plane tickets? ...
posted by pyramid termite at 4:32 AM on March 15, 2007


"My country can handle more mass suffering than yours" is the weirdest pissing contest I've ever seen.

Well, I guess the Tubgirl Re-Enactment contest was maybe weirder...
posted by COBRA! at 7:08 AM on March 15, 2007


.I suspect that for most Iraqis, the single most astounding aspect of the American occupation (besides the fact that it finally happened, at long last) has been that we have not been arresting those in Iraq who have publicly criticized us.

Now this is assuming that Americans knew what they were saying- in their language.
posted by NorthernLite at 7:40 AM on March 15, 2007


"My country can handle more mass suffering than yours" is the weirdest pissing contest I've ever seen.

I don't know, I just get irritated when some New World skirmish is compared to WWII. I understand that, for someone who hasn't come off the Cold Mountain much, great-grandpa's defeat might seem like a big deal, but some sense of perspective is really a good thing to have.
posted by c13 at 8:22 AM on March 15, 2007


Zbigniew Brzezinski on The Daily Show
posted by homunculus at 9:41 AM on March 15, 2007


The funny thing is, back on the campaign trail in 2000, GW Bush would have probably agreed with you 100%. Remember, this was a man who believed in a "foreign policy based on humility" and scorned the idea of nation-building. These were his convictions.

The fact that he abandoned these convictions at the very first sign of adversity proves that he is a coward, a weakling, and a fool.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:14 PM PST on March 14



That's just silly.

He never abandoned those convictions. He never held them in the first place. His handlers simply crafted positions and messages that they thought would resonate with the average voter, and they (or at least a significant portion of them) bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
posted by stenseng at 1:05 PM on March 15, 2007


i want to hear how latvia's going to invade us

Why on earth would we want to do that? I bet it's near to impossible to buy decent liverwurst, carraway cheese or pickled herrings in America, and the opportunities for finding wild mushrooms & berries are kinda compromised by all those loonies wandering around in the forests shooting each other.

The problem with the Vietnam analogy is that it's not dismal enough. The South Vietnamese government the US tried to prop up was thuggish and undemocratic, but not communist

Nor was the North Vietnamese mob that the US tried to defeat. Like so many democratically-elected governments overthrown by the Americans, they were really just nationalists with a left-leaning flavour that derived mostly from an anti-imperialist stance of nationalising (foreign) industry in the country & implementing agrarian reform (ie redistributing land to the poor).

Just as the US talked up Saddam as the new Hitler, armed to the teeth with WMDs, they also talked up the VC from a populist regime that actually looked up to America & wanted to emulate her achievements, into a communist scourge. The main 'evidence' for their supposed communism was little more than the fact that they were forced to buy arms from China, since they couldn't get any from any other source.

In that sense, the rampant falsehoods propagated by the US are just as dismal in Iraq as they were in Vietnam.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:50 PM on March 15, 2007


i forgot to mention: no kanepu sviests (cannabis butter) on the shelves in america, either...
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:09 PM on March 15, 2007


The Sunni Shiite conflict, while very real, is much more a result of a power vacuum in Iraq than a larger religious war ready to boil over.

the most intelligent post in this thread. The real question which none of the others here have any clue.

so Karl, how did you like my Blowing your pal Juan outta the water, took me 5 minutes and i did not even edit.

amazing they let someone who has little concept of military history get away with that statement:

Cole: During the war between Iraq and Iran, Saddam and Khomeini didn't destroy each other's oil-producing capabilities, because they knew it would make each of them a Fourth World country

that war cost over 300 billion 1980's $, a million lives. It changed the course of oil production drastically.

so, whatta you all say we give Iran a bomb. No war, no air stikes on thier nuclear capibilty...why not, every one wins... yes?

The main 'evidence' for their supposed communism was little more than the fact that they were forced to buy arms from China, since they couldn't get any from any other source.

they, I assume you mean vietnam, when was this "supposed communism" (VC) take place 1949?....

1949 — Chinese communists reach the northern border of Indochina. The Viet Minh drive the French from the border region and begin to receive large amounts of weapons from the Soviet Union and China. The weapons transform the Viet Minh from an irregular small-scale insurgency
-from wikipedia.

January 1961 — Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev pledges support for "wars of national liberation" throughout the world. The idea of creating a neutral Laos is suggested to Kennedy.
-ibid

hhmmm...so it was just china.

my god, the lack of even basic historical knowledge is...
F$%& *&. I guess you right, yea, your argument makes alot of sense.

as much as JUAN COLES.

(Dick Clark only got one comment in that piece and he hit the mark)
posted by clavdivs at 11:16 AM on March 16, 2007


clavdivs, mate, stay off the booze, willya?

communism is a political-economic doctrine, not a matter of who provides arms to who for whatever reason.

one of the most persistent myths of our time is that the viet minh / viet cong were politically or economically communist.

as it was, "communism" was just a convenient label for the americans to use during the cold war to overthrow any government that threatened to harm private american corporate interests, in favour of national programmes that aimed to alleviate the suffering of the poor.

since you seem to use wikipedia as your main source of disinformation, i suggest you buy yourself a copy of this book to brush up on the basic facts.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:24 PM on March 16, 2007


I don't drink,
ok, your gonna get a debate, you and me, in this thread. m'Kay
mate.
I bet it's near to impossible to buy decent liverwurst, carraway cheese or pickled herrings in America, and the opportunities for finding wild mushrooms & berries are kinda compromised by all those loonies wandering around in the forests shooting each other.

i can find very good wurst and can show you woods that few humans have come across. but that is beside the point and only shows your "Humour".

Nor was the North Vietnamese mob that the US tried to defeat

you need to clarify this as in when, 1941?, when Ho was our friend? 1945? when
(September 13, 1945)- British forces arrive in Saigon, South Vietnam.

In North Vietnam, 150,000 Chinese Nationalist soldiers, consisting mainly of poor peasants, arrive in Hanoi after looting Vietnamese villages during their entire march down from China. They then proceed to loot Hanoi.


(can't link because I post from a library but my source:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html)

of course they were nationalists, recall the Trung sisters....I doubt it.

they also talked up the VC from a populist regime that actually looked up to America & wanted to emulate her achievements, into a communist scourge.

the "VC" were formed in 1960, southern cadre in 1962. so when you say VC, i will assume this is the basis for your timeline.

The regime did not "look up" to the U.S. in 1960-1962

The main 'evidence' for their supposed communism

by 1960-62, they were "communist" this is just plain evident.

The main 'evidence' for their supposed communism was little more than the fact that they were forced to buy arms from China, since they couldn't get any from any other source.

your analogy of 'evidence' that the NFL was communist, getting thier weapons from china (and Russia) hence...they should be attacked?

ok, on to your rebuttal

communism is a political-economic doctrine, not a matter of who provides arms to who for whatever reason.

ok, whats your point....oh the U.S. and france gave Ho his first weapons, well not first, but a nice cache (and china kicked in some) of weapons....see OSS in vietnam during WWII.

one of the most persistent myths of our time is that the viet minh / viet cong were politically or economically communist.
myth? the VC were communist show me a link of book passage...(1960-62) for the term VC as not being communist.

in favour of national programmes that aimed to alleviate the suffering of the poor.

yeah sure...see the sovs neat little plan called the TRUST.

who gave wheat to Lenin when his country was going to starve...but this is different matter.

I have read more books on this subject then you could count.
i use wikipedia because it is fast but i don't trust it either (refer to my most recent ASKME post)

the cold war to overthrow any government that threatened to harm private american corporate interests
wow, something we can partly agree upon.

DONT EVER TELL me TO BRUSH UP ON FACTS. sorry, bit miffed.

well,you have the floor. or you could ignore me like other posters when I am right.

I have little time for MeFi anymore, I will treat you with...decorum and reply to your post.

January 1961 - Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev pledges support for "wars of national liberation" throughout the world. His statement greatly encourages Communists in North Vietnam to escalate their armed struggle to unify Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh.

OH,just a little tid bit from http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1961.html
posted by clavdivs at 10:53 AM on March 17, 2007


Wasn't this originally an article in--Still only two pigeon feathers and a bottlecap!--Annoying Street Lunatic magazine ?
posted by y2karl at 12:57 PM on March 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


you could ignore me like other posters when I am right

no, i'm more likely to ignore people when i accidentally stumble into their pet topic - first, because they obviously care far more about it than i ever could, and second, because they have a tendency towards not seeing the forest for the trees.

was that bit in bold supposed to be particularly significant? becoz it seems to be just what some guy said on his website.

i can do this too. the tiny change in emphasis perhaps illustrates my point about the framing of the terrorist communist threat against brand freedom-n-democracy:

January 1961 - Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev pledges support for wars of national liberation throughout the world. His statement greatly encourages "Communists" in North Vietnam to escalate their armed struggle to unify Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh.

*I AM NOW LEAVING METAFILTER FOREVER! FUCK YOU, METAFILTER PUSSIES!*
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:33 PM on March 17, 2007


Looks over shoulder wondering "who's that looking over their shoulder at me."

I would like to unsubscribe from this thread. Thank you.
posted by taosbat at 3:40 PM on March 17, 2007


I see. (hey Karl, that was funny, still posting wheat hoping the chaff will stick?)
my BOLD, well sorry, guess i should have used italics.

i accidentally stumble into their pet topic
ok....

because they have a tendency towards not seeing the forest for the trees.
ok...i see trees.

becoz it seems to be just what some guy said on his website.
umm, you mean the vietnam war timeline, was it to much to absorb...oh
first, because they obviously care far more about it than i ever could

i can do this too. the tiny change in emphasis perhaps illustrates my point about the framing of the terrorist communist threat against brand freedom-n-democracy:

care to expand on your thesis?

*I AM NOW LEAVING METAFILTER FOREVER! FUCK YOU, METAFILTER PUSSIES!*

ok, have a nice day, oh and how does it feel to have your hat handed to you?
posted by clavdivs at 11:40 AM on March 18, 2007


anyone else?
posted by clavdivs at 11:41 AM on March 18, 2007


what.
posted by stenseng at 5:26 PM on March 18, 2007


....care to debate?
posted by clavdivs at 11:22 AM on March 19, 2007


I'm not sure whether you paid as little attention in Math as you did in History, but that comes out to be 23,200,000.

You miss my point, which is that America, parts of it at least, does indeed know what it is to suffer invasion. Absolute numbers are irrelevant.

And sarcasm is never attractive.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:26 PM on March 19, 2007


Oh no...
posted by taosbat at 7:05 PM on March 19, 2007


And sarcasm is never attractive.

I wholeheartedly agree. I vow never to be sarcastic again.

I also look forward to discussing the relative political stances of the people's front of judaea vis-a-vis the judean people's front at the earliest possible opportunity.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:43 PM on March 19, 2007


Bush's Top Ten Mistakes in Iraq during the Past 4 Years
posted by homunculus at 12:18 AM on March 21, 2007


« Older Ever get the giggles at the most inappropriate tim...  |  A bizarre skin condition.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments